Talk:Fat acceptance movement/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

Contents

Background: Medical

Just wanted to add that there are some people who acknowledge that very high weight might have some negative health consequences, yet those people still argue that weight loss should not be prescribed as a goal since it often does not work in the long term and is often even contraproductive since people a) often stop newly acquired healthy behavior such as regular exercise once they notice that it does not lead to permanent weight loss and b) intentional weight loss is often followed by weight gain, sometimes leaving the person with a higher weight than before the weight loss attempt. Also, might Linda Bacon be a good person to add here as someone who promotes HAES? --82.215.30.161 13:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Put aside the weasel words. Name your sources. I've never heard of a single doctor of any repute who believes the fat should stay fat. Obesity kills the person, it drains resources from everyone else, and has not a single redeeming quality. 71.135.181.124 03:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite see what your point adds to the article. Fact is that the fat acceptance movement exists - what you think of it is your personal opinion. In addition the main point of fat acceptance is not the existing or non-existing health consequences of being fat but that :fat people are discriminated against and that this should not be the case (and plenty of research shows that this discrimination exists).
As for the "weasel words": While possible health consequences of being fat are not the main point of fat acceptance, most people in the movement agree that a) there is no safe way to lose weight and to KEEP IT DOWN in the long term for most people and b) that the health consequences of fat are generally exaggerated. This should be mentioned in the article - no matter if you believe those ideas are correct or not.
In adition there is research that supports these views. Some researchers working on these topics are Linda Bacon, Glenn Gaesser, and Paul Ernsberger. Two sample scientific articles on the long-term failure of deliberate weight loss and on possible alternative approaches to health are
Bacon, L., Van Loan M. , Stern J. S., Keim N. (2005). Size acceptance and intuitive eating improves health for obese female chronic dieters. Journal of American Dietetic Association, 105, 929-936.
Garner, D. M., Wooley, S. C. (1991). Confronting the failure of behavioral and dietary treatments for obesity. Clinical Psychology Review, 11, 729-780.
Also, there are plenty of Internet resources where the ideas of fat acceptance and health are discussed such as www.lindabacon.org, www.bodypositive.com, and junkfoodscience.blogspot.com.(By the way, I am the one who wrote the original discussion point you refer to, however, I forgot to sign in when I wrote it.) --R.C.B. 21:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Fat acceptance and lesbianism

While I find the topic of this heading interesting I don't see how most of the content under it relates in any way to lesbianism (e.g., how is Paul Campos' work relate to it?). Should the heading be changed? --82.215.30.161 13:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that it's been changed; I thought it was a curious addition in the first place, but I do think it would be valuable to have a section on intersections with other social justice movements. Obviously, with NOLOSE and individual activists, there is clearly a strong queer presence in the movement and queer activism influences fat lib activism. Perhaps this should be mentioned somewhere? 68.7.69.146 21:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, I removed the heading only because the section didn't have to do explicitly with the movement and lesbianism. There are definitely strong ties, however, and a subsection would still be welcomed, I think. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pmcaleer (talk • contribs) 01:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Size acceptance vs. fat acceptance

My experience has been that most people in the movement will state that people of all body shapes and sizes should be accepted - this is for example important in the case of naturally very thin people who live in cultures where this is not the beauty ideal or for anorexic people who are dicriminated. Should this be mentioned somewhere? --R.C.B. 17:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

"Fat activist"

Can you only be a fat activist if you are fat yourself? Actually, quite a few very prominent people who promote fat acceptance are not fat... --R.C.B. 17:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Acceptance :(

I'm sorry but being fat shouldn't ever be accepted except in cases where there is some sort of medical disease involved. Acceptance of being fat is actually quite absurd, people aren't fat because they were born fat or born skinny but are fat because of choices they have made in their life. If you eat fastfood everyday of the week you are probably going to gain weight. Activists say that dieting causes people to be fat, that statement is ridiculous, because if your caloric expenditure exceeds your intake, you'll start to use fat as energy. If you binge eat when dieting that has nothing to do with diet, but only your self control, which is why dieting usually doesn't work for overweight people, because they lack self control.

Gross denial is not a solution to the problem either. Saying that just because you are fat doesn't make you any more of a risk for certain diseases such as diabetes or heart disease goes against an overwhelming number of medical studies that show the direct link between the two.

I will say however, that some people are handicapped in terms of weightloss because not everyone is born with the same exact genetic code. If you are struggling with becoming healthy by reducing your weight, enlist the aid of a dietician to help you find a solution. As to accepting a person with a disease that causes them to be overweight, it is equivocal of accepting a person with a disability, there's nothing they can do to become healthy. But other than that, while I don't derive any enjoyment from degrading other people with jokes about their physique, I will never consider prejudice against someone overweight people the same as prejudice against people who cannot possibly change their situation whether they would want to or not. e.g. The color of your skin, or your sex.

--71.241.12.104 22:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  • That's nice, but Wikipedia isn't a debate forum - it's an online encyclopedia, and this Talk entry is about maintaining that entry, not about arguing over the merits of fat acceptance. --Soultaco 19:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Title of this article

  • I think this title could be improved...to something like "Obesity acceptance movement". The current title sounds slightly ambiguous. --RabidMonkeysEatGrass 22:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    • It depends on what it is most commonly called in the movement itself, I'd say. Of course finding that out would require some research. Likewise, with the use of the term obesity. The movement itself may not view obesity in the same context as being fat. I don't know, but I'd suggest research before making changes. --Lendorien 07:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      • ...well...yes, but right now fat could be confused as an adjective. --RabidMonkeysEatGrass 20:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
        • But it isn't called the "obesity acceptance movement". It is called the fat acceptance movement. It is named as it is for a combination of reasons: people in the movement don't like the pejorative term "obesity." It is also a form of "taking back the word" to be neutral, rather than negative. Moonvine 14:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Also, "obesity" incorrectly implies fatness is the result of gluttony (from "obesus"). "Obesity" is also the word-of-choice used by those who are pushing the idea that fatness is a disease instead of a characteristic. "Obese" is far, far more insulting and destructive to fat people than the simple, clear word "fat." In other words, "obese" and "overweight" (again, implying fatness is abnormal) make some thin people comfortable, not fat people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.200.200.18 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Fat IS an adjective. MarkRose 05:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The word "fat" depending on how it's used, can be either an adjective or a noun.75.70.125.3 03:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism :)

Is there no criticism of this movement worthy of mention at all? I would imagine that at the very least that physicians in general would not be terribly supportive of this movement. I'm not a physician, but it seems a little irresponsible to tell people that they can be healthy no matter what size they are (be it very thin or very fat). Significant health risks accompany being fat - physicians don't just make this up.http://medrants.com/index.php/archives/date/2003/09/29/ There is usually a criticisms section on the pages on most other movements. Why not this one? Rhesusman 22:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually physicians are just as blinded by their social upbringing as everyone else and do overstate the risks of being "obese." The classification of "obesity" has also been getting lighter and lighter over the years. Fairly soon, I'm sure, Paris Hilton will have to go to fat camp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.206.34.42 (talk • contribs) 11:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Criticism towards other movements are generally about specific events and/or individuals therein, not towards the movement itself. Does the Civil Rights Movement contain criticism about the movement just existing? Part of what the fat acceptance movement is about is the recognition of pork barrel politics involved between media coverage of "obesity" and weight-loss drug manufacturers (such as Roche, manufacturer of Xenical, which had a core net income of 5.41639512 billion U.S. dollars in 2005 [1] and gives out this yearly award. Any internist can tell you it is not merely fats who have high cholesterol, high blood pressure, or high blood sugar. These things are determined by our genes, and by how we live. Being fat does not naturally equate anyone with these things. And that's what "Healthy at any size," an oft-used slogan of this movement, means. Eating well and being active are important for everyone, and some people are larger than others. There is little that seems irresponsible about that to me. --Lpno90 20:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
There is links between obesity and low income, crime, lower life expectancy, less likely to stay in education, more likely to use up health service etc. See the main Obesity article for more details. Skinnyweed 20:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Its a criticism which is exactly what is supposed to be there. Mentioning that doctors don't think its healthy to be overweight isnt vandalsim every movement has some sort of criticism and it's not vandalism just because you don't like reading it. Nobody has pointed out in any case that the vast majority of people that allegedly just HAVE to be fat now wouldnt have been fat 100-200 years ago. Its all a matter of overindulgance in the modern diet which is a form of lack of self control. The people that think their genetically doomed to obesity would not be so overweight in the 19th century or earlier so they should take some responsibility for their actions. It seems like this fat acceptance movement is not only promoting an unhealthy lifestyle it is trying to justify it through what come down to playing the "fat" card, that is to believe that any criticism of them comes from a systemic anti-fat bias similar to racism. However, unlike racism which is based on abstract concepts of superiority, being against the acceptance of an unhealthy lifestyle as the norm in a country where it is fast becoming the norm is hardly an irresponsible position. Clearly the proponents of this movement don't feel confident enough to take any criticism of it as they must on some level understand that this movement is basically to spare their feelings. Instead of for instance working on the problem in a constructive manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.239.197 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Acutally, they ARE working on this in a constructive manner. Lots of people are heavier now because of DIETING to try to fit in with this culture's ultra obsession with being skinny; 100-200 years ago, this obsession did not exist. No one is trying to play a 'fat' card, people just want to live thier lives without daily insults, taunts, and things like this page being vandalised. People need to realise that being fat does not automatically equal an unhealthy lifestyle. Plenty of thin people lead unhealthy lifestyles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faust242 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
      • The criticisms you bring up are already in the entry for Obesity, no? (That's the only point in your biased paragraph worth discussing.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.26.30.5 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused over the entire criticism section. It seems to be little more than criticism (and at times pure denigration) of "obese people" and not of the Fat Acceptance Movement. I'll try to look some up myself too, but as it stands the whole paragraph looks like it needs to be revised/replaced. Rugadh 18:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Some changes

  • Changed link title from famous "overweight" people to famous "fat or large-bodied" people, as "overweight" is deemed perjorative within the fat acceptance movement. Removed links to "Overeaters" sites. The conflation of over-eating with being fat is stereotyping and offensive, and quite simply unfounded. The fat acceptance movement has absolutely nothing to do with overeating, if only at the very least to fight such myths. Added Charlotte Cooper to visible list & link to charlottecooper.net. --Lpno90 04:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Just capitalised some words.

Hey, I've gotten into trouble editing without posting so I just changed some stuff for better wording. Let me know if anyone thinks I did a poor job, I always welcome the chance to learn better writing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.59.231 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

"Fat acceptance covers several fronts but generally can be described as attempting to change societal, internal, and medical attitudes about fats, despite heavy criticism." Intentional? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.74.111.245 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Note that "fats" is a derogatory term that was added by a vandal. Also, "heavy" criticism might have been added by the same person.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.26.30.5 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

needs more insight, criticism

This movement does have its critics, and sourcable ones too. Three types of criticism can be brought up-- scientific, ideological, and personal (dealing with major figureheads of the movement). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.79.132.60 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to come here, show no knowledge of the subject matter, and criticize people, at least have the courtesy to sign your comments with your own name. Chartreuse green 22:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I disagree, but that's not the point. If that's what you believe, then why not at least sign your name to it? Chartreuse green 18:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a different person, but signing your name is pointless because it's just a name you made up anyway, there is no benefit in having merit to a name unless it could possibly be monetary. If you want to sign with a legal name, I could say my legal name was Aaron Hall or Lesley Putnam, you don't know if I'm telling the truth. There's many people in the nation with the same name so even if you manage to find many people living in the same city with that name and connect it to a household, you can't even be sure if that's me. And assuming it was, what would that accomplish? You'd pay at least a few hundred to come to my house and yell at me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.155.233.145 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, to all, please remember that this is a talk page for talking about the article. Lets keep discussion focused on how to improve it as per WP:NPOV. I do agree that the this article needs to include reference to the critics of the movement. Irrespective of the validity of the claims made by either 'side', for this to be an encyclopedic article it needs to include these, and responses from the fat acceptance movement to these criticisms, and counter-criticisms etc. Cheers, Mostlyharmless 04:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

If nothing else, this article certainly implies that is not so bad to be overweight. Somebody compared it to the civil rights movement, which is laughable. I don't believe there was proof that minorities deserved subjugation, but there is overwhelming proof that being overweight is unhealthy. Countless recent studies have directly linked obesity with heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, and more. This article does nothing to outline those risks. Sure, you can be slightly overweight and still relatively healthy, but this is the FAT movement not the "overweight but eating well and exercising" movement. I find this article irresponsible.Spyde 05:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

So you think the article should be deleted based on your viewpoint? The idea of the fat acceptance movement isn't all about people who WANT to be fat. Its also about those that are fat that are able to accept themselves for what they are. And for the record, my doctor said as long as I don't have any problems resulting from said fatness (like all of the ones you mentioned), then I shouldn't worry about it. Everything inside my body is normal, so why are you saying that my outside can't be? Maybe you can make your own webpage with your viewpoint, but you need to look at WP:NPOVButterflyvertigo 03:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
First off, comparing fat acceptance to the civil rights movement may be laughable, but if that is a comparison fat acceptance advocates make then their claim should be noted. As for Butterflyvertigo's comment: the fat acceptance movement actually isn't just about allowing those who are fat to "accept themselves for what they are"; as Spyde says, the movement isn't just about accepting those who are larger but generally healthy. There are some advocates who maintain that doctors should completely disregard bodyfat and refrain from encouraging weight loss in assessing patients' health, even when those levels are a product of an unhealthy lifestyle - which is a very controversial position to take, from a medical perspective. Criticism of that position is worthy of mention in this entry. --Soultaco 19:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
To be fair, those who believe that doctors should refrain from encouraging weight loss "even when those levels are a product of an unhealthy lifestyle" almost uniformaly believe that doctors should still encourage individuals to move to a more healthy lifestyle. They just think that the focus should be on the habits themselves, such as increasing activity and improving nutrition, rather than lowering the number on the scale. The idea is that fat is used as a proxy for a number of health habits and outcomes and focussing directly on those rather than on the fat itself is desirable. Chartreuse green 20:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the question is this: Are there significant, cohesive, groups of people who criticize the Fat Acceptance Movement? If so, they should be listed here. The question isn't whether or not their criticisms are valid, but only whether or not they exist in significant numbers. Ryansupak 16:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

using the word "fat"

Someone changed the word "fat" to "obese" in this article's introduction and I changed it back. Within the fat acceptance movement, "obese" is considered pejorative, and so in this particular article it makes sense to use the language of the movement. In addition, it is simply incorrect to say that the fat acceptance movement has a goal of changing attitudes towards "obese" people, because the fat acceptance movement is not specifically aimed at individuals whose BMI's fall between a specified range, which is what the word "obese" implies. Chartreuse green 17:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Chartreuse green explained above while the use of the word "obese" is not appropriate in this article. If you disagree and think "obese" should be used instead of "fat" please discuss it here before you make the change - it will save all of us some time and energy. Thanks. --R.C.B. 08:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hatred vs. Criticism

Having read the entirety of this page, I found it necessary to point out that many of the critics of the article were engaged in passionate hatespeech rather than helpful criticism and/or argumentation. Calling a group of people "lazy maggots" or "gluttonous" or "ignorant" or "greedy," is not only unnecessarily disrespectful, it is the kind of behavior that I believe the movement is working to abolish. It does not matter whether or not a person is responsible for their weight (or any other stigmatized characteristic), what matters is the level of hatred and bigotry which these people must face on a daily basis. If these critics were truly concerned for the health of larger people, why would they feel the necessity to speak (or write) in such a derogatory manner? Certainly smokers with lung cancer do not face such utter disgust and vitriol from their peers. The discussion regarding obesity, health, genes, and lifestyle can and will continue in the annals of medicine, but here we have the opportunity to seriously examine our prejudices against and underlying hatred towards fat people. We have the chance to ask ourselves why these people are so marginalized, and begin to work towards a more peaceful way of communicating. Let's take this opportunity, shall we? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.42.231.82 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You think this is bad? Try going to the pages about Islam. Armyrifle

How does this add anything to the issue of hateful and prejudiced comments to this article? I don't think anybody is going to argue that fat people are the only group that experiences hatred and discrimination...--R.C.B. 10:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The Possibility of Losing Weight

This is more of a question than anything. I keep reading that it's not fat people's fault that they can't lose weight. The thing is, elementary physics tells me that anyone must lose weight if the number of calories of energy they consume is fewer than the number of calories of energy they burn. This must be regardless of any medical disorders etc. (excluding psychiatric disorders)

So even if someone has a "glandular" problem, surely consuming fewer calories than they burn must result in losing weight? There is no violation of physical causation here is there?  ;-)

I do believe in fat acceptance in that I try not to judge people for being massively overwight (though no doubt I subconsciously apply sterotypes to them, just as I subconsciously apply stereotypical characteristics to everything). But I do think it's safe to say that the vast majority of people think that IN GENERAL (not in every case) overweight or obese folks are not as physically attractive as slim folks. Fat acceptance as some sort of mandate that everyone must "love" the fat body type is silly because fat or overweight people can lose weight, improve their health, and look more attractive without medication (it's not a disease... you agree that being fat is not a disease, right?)


Nobody in fat acceptance disagrees that if you lock someone in a room with no access to food they will lose weight and eventually starve to death. The thing is that it is a LOT more complicated than that, and not as simple as calories in = calories out! There are too many reasons why it is complicated to list here. Some examples though, are:
  • our bodies adjust how many calories they use and how many they store based on caloric needs, metabolism, how much you've eaten recently, etc, etc
  • for some fat people, the energy and effort required to lose weight is such that they would need to be obsessed with calorie counting for the rest of their lives. They choose to expend that effort on other aspects of their lives: their kids, their jobs, etc. That's a valid choice.
  • psychologically, dieting is complicated. There is ample evidence that dieting causes binging, whether you are fat or thin, and many fat people don't want to put themselves into a position of binging uncontrollably. Chartreuse green 19:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Some fat people (such as those in the Fat Acceptance movement) already look and feel their best. Attractiveness standards have changed over time. Normal human bodies vary in many ways. Some people are short. Some people are tall. Some people have dark skin. Some people have light skin. Some people are thin. Some people are fat. And the health problem associated with being fat have been shown time and time again to have more to do with trying to lose weight (something fat people in our current world are often encouraged to do). Read up on Health at Every Size and the Size Acceptance/Fat Acceptance movements before commenting, please. The stereotypes and scientific ignorance displayed in so many of these comments illustrate all too well what the movement is trying to educate on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.210.82.130 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Scientific ignorance you say? Are you referring to the same scientific ignorance displayed by people who state their opinion as fact? For example, contributors to this article?
Could you please stop the personal attacks? There are contributors on both sides of the fence that state their opinion as a fact, but this is not the issue here. The main point of fat acceptance is NOT that being fat does not increase the risk for certain health problems or that losing weight is impossible in ALL cases. The main point is that there is wide spread prejudice and discrimination against fat people – for example fat people are less likely to get a job, they are often thought to be lazy or stupid, etc. This is not acceptable in the eyes of fat activists. Even if a safe way to lose weight and keep it down in the long term that would work for most people would be found this point would not change.
Many fat activists including myself will further argue that prejudice has also found its way into health care and that therefore the dangers of being fat are often overstated. Further, many health care professionals seem to assume that failure to maintain weight loss is due to a low level of will power in fat people. However, as far as I am aware this last point has never been shown in a study. Hence the criticism of the recommendation to lose weight.
As far as I can see the current article is not showing fat acceptance in an overly positive light at all. As you might have noticed, there is quite an extensive part on criticism of fat acceptance. I would have a reply to all of these points (for example, the point that fat acceptance actively promotes unhealthy eating and exercise habits can be countered by the fact that many fat activists promote HAES which states over and over the importance of a healthy diet and exercise adjusted for personal abilities and preferences INDEPENDENT OF WEIGHT LOSS). But I do not change the criticism section accordingly because I believe both sides should have their say.--R.C.B. 09:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, you can change the criticism section, but the big point is that we should just be reporting on what has been said in public debate, not just adding original research and opinions. If someone writes an article in a media source responding to these criticisms, you can note that fact. (I'd like to beef up the criticisms with some better references, actually - I know better articles have been written expressing the views in the "Criticism" sections, but I've had trouble finding the proper citations.)

--Soultaco 16:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I went a bit overboard in my previous comment. I actually don't think that the replies that come to my mind when I read the points of criticism mentioned should be included in that section; some of them would rather belong to earlier paragraphs (for example, as mentioned it is a misconception that HAES promotes unhealthy eating or lack of exercise, it just does not see weight loss as a goal in its own but rather as a possibly but not necessarily occuring side effect of changes in diet and exercise habits). I am however getting very tired with the argument that this article should not exist "because being fat is unhealthy". As others have mentioned this point is not really an argument for the deletion of this article. In addition I wonder how the possible health effects of being fat justify the discrimination of fat people. As a life-long fat person myself I admittedly find it hard to react calm to these statements.--R.C.B. 09:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Can someone semi-protect this page?

I am not sure who or where the people are who do this, could someone reading this who happens to know how to protect articles get this done? It's getting repeatedly vandalized more than it's getting edited, for an article that would be problematic enough without the vandals. Thanks. Abbenm 02:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


Removed content on talk page not in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines on Civility and that fit in with Wikipedia definition of Vandalism and Personal Attacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.176.164.211 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Request protection here: WP:RFP Totnesmartin 20:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Abbenm 03:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

reference

The reference that says fat people are more expensive to house doesn't back up the claim. It talks about making better inforced chairs for fat people but mainly about ergonomics. Should it be pulled (i think it ref 4 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.110.221.182 (talk) 07:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Abstract Humor?

Is this article an exercise in some sort of abstract humor, or is it a legimate proposal that is expected to be taken seriously? It's rather difficult to decipher.

I don't know where you get the idea from that this article is not meant seriously. The fat acceptance movement exists - actually it has been around for several decades. Also, the prejudice that the movement is fighting exists: As I said before, there is plenty of research on it and it is pretty much an accepted fact in the social sciences that fat people face discrimination. So what's your point? --R.C.B. 17:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • What's your point? That humans tend to make judgments based on appearances alone? So do most other animals. What a fascinating discovery. Let's add the "ism" suffix to it and write an article about it. Maybe we should create a category called Victim Complex for all these half-written articles about "discrimination."
I think I made "my" point clear in my earlier reply as well as in several other comments on this discussion page. This article is not meant as a joke. It is an article about a social movement that has existed for several decades and that is an answer to wide spread discrimination against fat people. The existence of this discrimination has been verified over and over again in scientific studies - in fact not only fat activists but also many social scientists often call it the last form (or at least one of the last forms) of discrimination that can be expressed openly in modern Western society.
As for judgments based on appearance alone: It is true that people who are judged as physically not attractive (according to cross-culturally used standards) are also discriminated against and if someone wants to write an article about it that's fine with me. However, I have the impression that you are arguing that neither sizeism nor the fat acceptance movement should have an article. I am wondering if you would say the same thing about racism, sexism, and homophobia as well as the respective civil rights movements. If not I am wondering why.--R.C.B. 09:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
As stated before here, this is an online encyclopedia, and this article is simply here to document the existence of a fat acceptance movement, not explicitly advocate for or advance it. Our individual opinions of its merits are (or at least should be) mostly irrelevant. --Soultaco 16:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
But are the views that the "fat acceptance movement" claims to be combatting universally recognised or are they disputed? Because the article seems to take them as granted and I'm not so sure that such "invidious" views are really regarded as typical. Hence the NPOV tag. Srnec 17:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
When I understand you right you are questioning if prejudice and discrimination of fat people in contemporary culture is really as far spread as the movement claims. There are actually numerous studies that support that this particular form of prejudice is indeed far spread. Two examples (of which the second is a review article):
  • Schwartz, M. B., O'Neal Chambliss, H., Brownell, K. D., Blair, S. N., & Billington, C. (2003). Weight bias among health professionals specializing in obesity. Obesity Research, 11, 1033-1039.
  • Puhl, R.,& Brownell, K. D. (2001). Bias, discrimination, and obesity. Obesity Research, 9, 788-805.
To quote the first article,
Weight bias and discrimination have been documented in various areas of society, including employment practices, salary and promotion decisions, education and housing opportunities, and portrayal of obese persons in popular media. (p. 1033)
--R.C.B. 08:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Not surprising that documentation exists. But sentences like "However invidious societal attitudes have remained, based upon the idea that fat people pursue affirmative, voluntary practices to maintain their body size" are not neutral. They assume the presence of "invidious societal attitudes" and I highly doubt these are universally accepted. Srnec 16:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
After looking up "invidious" in the dictionary (sorry, I am not a native speaker) I agree with you. I changed the introduction accordingly. I also had a quick look at the rest of the article and did not find any other POV wording. If you don't have other examples, can we remove the NPOV tag? --R.C.B. 16:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Might I suggest that liberal use of the word "perceived" would clean up the rest of the text. Feel free to remove the tag. Srnec 21:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I see what you mean. However, I personally don't think this really does justice to the evidence that prejudice and discrimination towards fat people does indeed exist. As I said before, there are many studies that show this - many more than I have cited - including studies showing that already quite young children don't want to have fat friends, that parents are less likely to pay for their child's college education if he or she is fat, that medical professionals, even the ones who are specialized in the treatment of fat people, have often very negative attitudes towards fat patients and many others. In fact, in contrast to racism and sexism that usually take more subtle forms nowadays, many people feel free to openly express their prejudices towards fat people. Using the word "perceived" in the article gives the impression that fat people might just imagine to be discriminated (or as a previous commenter said, that fat people might have some kind of "victim complex").--R.C.B. 19:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Perhaps if the Criticism section contained more information regarding the medical/health fields perspective on the dangers of being fat, the NPOV dispute tag would be removed?

For instance, none of the medical problems that fat ascerbates is mentioned, such as strain of the back, joints, heart, etc., which is due to being at the fat end of the size spectrum. Also the relationship to type II diabetes, amenorrhea, sleep apenea, asthma, as well as the other various medical conditions that the medical community shows fat having a bearing on, none of that is mentioned at all in the article.

Because, to me, that's where the breakdown is with the neutrality. Most people, if you ask them what they know or believe about fat, they will almost certainly mention the myriad of health problems associated with being fat, as well as their preference that fat, to them, is not aesthetically pleasing. So to leave that out of the Criticism section--especially the documented medical findings showing correlation or indeed causation, is perhaps why it was open to a NPOV dispute tag. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.114.17.206 (talk) 15:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

What you're requesting is a criticism of obesity, however, not a criticism of the fat acceptance movement as an entity. Whatever medical issues are related to fatness, that has nothing to do with a movement that is, as has been repeatedly explained, not about advocating that people become fat, or that people be fat, but advocating for fair and health-focused treatment of fat people within society and by the medical establishment. The potential effects of fatness are not germane when discussing a movement which is looking at things like hiring and workplace inequities, media bias and so on.Dreamalynn 17:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)dreamalynn
The reason that the movement exists is that people, for whatever reason, tend to discriminate against fat people. The reasoning behind such discrimination is absolutely relevant to this article. We can speak about it in the context of cultural perception if necessary, but many of those perceptions are based in medical fact. Joie de Vivre 18:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
How is the perception that fat people tend to be lazy, without self-control, and generally less intelligent based on "medical fact"? Because this is the prejudice we are talking about. A high body fat percentage might be a risk factor for certain diseases but that is a completely different matter. In addition, the relative importance of this risk factor as compared to other risk factors such as smoking, genetic predisposition, sedentary lifestyle, certain eating habits etc. for overall morbidity is disputed - even among experts. Plus, until now the possibilities to lose weight permanently are rather limited for most people. But even if this was not the case, the supposed danger of a high body fat percentage as well as a realistic possibility to lose weight permanently would hardly be anything that could justify the widespread negative perception of fat people and the resulting prejudice and discrimination. --R.C.B. 21:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Political outlook?

Do fat-acceptance activists tend to have a common political or ideological outlook (liberal, populist, libertarian, etc.)? Are there "left-wing" and "right-wing" factions within the movement? Do they generally vote Democrat? Republican? Or are they all over the map? Mdumas43073 19:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that, contemporarily, the Democrats certainly understand the gravity of the fat-acceptance movement more so than the Republicans.
While it has its roots in the US, there are members of the fat acceptance movement in several other countries (e.g., UK, Australia, Italy, Germany, and Norway) so voting Democrat or Republican does not apply to all people in the movement. In addition, while my impression is that there are more members who define themselves as politically "left" the movement is by no means affiliated with any political ideology. In fact, many members lament that the political left - which seems generally more sympathetic towards claims of groups who are the target of prejudice - often follows the wide-spread "fat is bad" rhetoric just as the political right.--R.C.B. 21:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Support Groups

(Not meant to disparage, offend, or do anything other than clear up a curiosity)

Does the Fat Acceptance Movement feature/support any Alcoholics Anonymous-esque groups? In many ways it seems to be a similar issue -- brought about by choice and lifestyle, compounded by genetic build, heredity, and other factors -- to alcoholism and similar issues. I mean, politically incorrect it may be to say (I hate tripping over words), but there is no denying an increased risk for certain health problems due to being overweight. (Granted, all lifestyles increase the risk of developing/catching something.)

Incidentally, and I just wanted to say this, as someone who was a good deal overweight for much of my adolescence (even up to about a year ago) I will vouch for the fact that dieting can work, provided it's a real, healthy diet and not some consumption restriction regimen. Xiphe 07:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Short answer to your question: No. The long one: There are Overeaters Anonymous groups but they have nothing to do with fat acceptance. I also want to point out to you that not every person is fat because they overeat - and I say that as someone whose current weight has partially come about by overeating. The assumption that the majority of fat people have disordered eating behavior has never been shown to be true - although there are of course fat people that do have eating disorders (and not just binge eating disorder or compulsive overeating) just as there are thin and "normal" weight people who do. In addition fat acceptance advocates often don't see fatness as a "disease" or "disorder" in itself and many reject the Overeaters Anonymous approach.
Also, just for your information, there is plenty of evidence that most weight-loss diets - including the ones that doctors and dieticians promote - do not work in the long term for the large majority of peopl, that is, by far the majority of people gain back the weight they have lost in the years following the diet. This is why Health at Every Size, an approach to health that many people in the movement support, aims at healthy (and in this case that means intuitive) eating and fun exercise without the explicit goal to lose weight. The genetic component of being fat also seems to be far stronger than the genetic component of being an alcoholic (which does not mean that I am blaming alcoholics for their condition - I am just pointing out that fatness is harder to control). Finally, the possible health consequences of being fat are far less clear than and certainly not as severe as the health consequences of drinking regularly large amounts of alcohol or smoking for that matter. And many of the health conditions that correlate with being fat can be successfully treated by dietary changes and exercise alone without the goal of weight loss - for example regular exercise is helpful for people with insulin resistance as well as people with high blood pressure.--R.C.B. 15:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Folks, Wikipedia article talk pages exist to discuss changes to the article. They are not for chatting about the article's topic. Let's bring the discussion back to the article. Joie de Vivre 16:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.