PSA: On "Fluffy"

Do not EVER

EVER

EVER

FUCKING EVER

refer to fat people as "fluffy".

Fluffy is a thing that small poofly dogs and kittens and ducklings are.  

It is sometimes a thing that a person's hair might be, depending on the humidity.

It is NOT

a fucking descriptor

for my goddamn body.

It makes it sound like you think my fat is made of whipped cream or something equally stupid.

And maybe it's just me?

But it's the sort of descriptor that inherently casts fat as negative

by awkwardly being "cutesy" dancing around it

And also it implies

(and again this could just be me)

that my fat is just the "fluff" surrounding my actual body.

Like it's pillow stuffing filling up my skin

and if you took it out I would be skinny.  Like it's that easy.

Newsflash: my body is fucking fat.  Fat is the state of my physical being.  Fat is not this separate thing that rides around with me.  It is part of me.  There is no skinny girl inside me trying to get out.  There is just me.  And I will fucking end you if you imply otherwise.  I have no patience for that shit.

So just be aware that violating the terms of this PSA in my presence will result in immediate evisceration.

Verbal if you're out of reach.

But if you're within reach, I make no promises.

Have a nice day.

Fat Acceptance Is Not A "Passive" Act

Last week, Jen of Fat And Not Afraid linked to a post by a friend of hers, The Rogue Priest, about Fat Acceptance (FA), in which he voiced a couple of "concerns" about the merits of FA:

There are two concerns I have with the idea of fat acceptance:

• There are health problems associated with obesity. Some are exaggerated or imagined and advertisers definitely hit the button too hard, but I question whether people should be told to accept a higher-risk health condition.
• I tend to favor self-development. There is a type of happiness to be found in accepting circumstance, but also a type of happiness in overcoming adversity or personal obstacles and achieving something hard.

The first is the usual "fat is unhealthy therefore you're encouraging people to be unhealthy" BS, which commenters pretty thoroughly debunked, along with the notion that FA is "telling people to accept" anything, rather than presenting fat people with the novel idea that there is another choice outside of self-hate and celery sticks.  The second concern he voiced is less usual, and actually bothered me more, as a person who is deeply into self-development and who has also actually done the self-development work that FA requires of a person.  So I hopped over to leave a comment, basically summing up my own struggle with FA and how I count my increased self-acceptance and self-love and the stronger mental state that followed from that to be a big accomplishment from a personal development point of view.

To which he replied:

 [...] 

To me, having lived both of them, I do consider the proactive, demand-a-change, self development approach to be a very different kind of thing than the acceptance, self-love, take-me-as-I-am approach.

...way to completely sidestep addressing the point I just made, in favor of reiterating the point I was just debunking, but okay.  Let's take this point-by-point.

Look, here's the thing.  People don't just fall into FA, you know.  It is very much "proactive".  It requires dedicated work on rummaging through your preconceptions and your self-talk scripts and all kinds of internalized bullshit, to find it all and slowly, gently, without damaging yourself through further self-hate (OMG how could you have thought this for so long, STOP IT RIGHT NOW is not exactly the most productive way when the goal is long-term improvement of one's self-esteem), root it all out and replace it with healthier, more evidence- and reality-based conceptions of body size, weight, health, worth, and the relationship between those things.  (The short answer is, body size and weight are *sort of* connected, although not directly - some people pack a higher poundage into smaller space, simply by virtue of their build, and some people weigh less but take up more space, because of how they're built.  Health and worth?  Not even remotely connected, neither to each other nor to body size and weight.  Healthy fat people exist, as do unhealthy thin people, and all of us are worthy of dignity and respect because we are all people, the end.) Not to mention that because the anti-fat position is so vastly overrepresented in the media and culture, most people have never really been exposed to FA, so you have to search out blogs and books and people to talk to - again, very much a proactive thing.

So that takes care of the "proactive" assertion.  Next: you want to talk about demanding a change?  What do you think FA is and does?  As several other people pointed out in the comments there, FA as a movement is half self-acceptance and self-love, and half political/social activism to make it so that fat people don't NEED to undertake epic journeys of deprogramming and reprogramming their brains in order to stop the shame and self-hate!  We got Disney World to close its fat-shaming "exhibit" aimed at kids.  We raised over twenty thousand dollars to buy billboards countering the fat-shaming of children in Georgia.  Just because we're not demanding an unreasonable and unlikely physical change out of our bodies, and are instead demanding a change in how the world treats our bodies at the size they are, doesn't make it any less "demand-a-change".  

Lastly, given that my comment was explicitly describing how my journey from self-hate and disordered eating through to a fairly stable self-acceptance and HAES approach has been a massive accomplishment for my self-development, I find the contrasting of weight loss as a "self development approach" versus FA as a "take-me-as-I-am" approach to be deeply fucking insulting.  Look, bro, unfucking one's deeply dysfunctional culturally-ingrained mental patterns of internalized bigotry IS FUCKING SELF DEVELOPMENT, OKAY?  I consciously and deliberately sought out my mental patterns and slowly, painstakingly rewrote them to help me be a better person - stronger, happier, more fully myself in the world.  If that's not self development, I don't know what is.  Maybe you're working from a definition of self-development that reads "changing your external presentation to the world to increase public perception of your worth", but that is definitely not in the same realm as my definition, which reads roughly "consciously interacting with one's whole Self, mind/spirit/body/etc, in order to make deliberate changes that will make you happier, stronger, and healthier in every sense of the word"*, and I'm not inclined to grant that other definition any legitimacy as a valid meaning of "self development".

I cannot say enough how not-okay I am with this implicit framing of weight-loss as "active" self-development, versus FA as a "passive" approach.  It may have "acceptance" in the title, which is usually conceived as a fairly passive thing to do - accepting what you can't change, and all that.  But when what you're working on "accepting" is a trait inherent to your body, which is vehemently and violently reviled by the entire culture in which you live, "acceptance" is no passive, easy thing.  It requires work - a lot of it, and over a long period of time.  It requires struggle, as you chip away at internalized negativity you didn't even know was there - only to have the same issue pop up in slightly different clothing again a few weeks later, leaving you frustrated and angry because oh my god didn't I already work through this part how am I here again?  It requires strength - the kind of quiet, subtle strength that our culture never really talks about, because it's much more fun and dramatic to talk about and depict displays of overt, aggressive strength, but strength nonetheless.  It requires determination and persistence and consistency, especially during the awful, long slog through "well it's fine for other people to be fat but I still need to lose X lbs" territory - I'm pretty sure we all get stuck there for awhile, and the cognitive dissonance is nasty and yet still so hard to shake!  And above all, it requires courage, so much courage.  Because what you are doing, when you make the switch from a diet-and-thinness mentality to a FA mentality, is nothing less than flipping the finger to several very large, very loud, very well-funded and well-supported industries, which have conspired to build around you an entire culture which bombards you with repeated, painful, dangerous messages about your body and your worth as a human being.  You are explicitly rejecting the dominant narrative, openly refusing to participate in a game that 99% of the people around you are throwing themselves into playing.  Hell, in some ways, continuing to diet or attempt weight loss in some other way might actually be easier: less challenging, less personally-developing, because it allows you to go with the flow and it pretty much guarantees that everyone around you will support and encourage you in your efforts, while FA requires you to buck the trend and risk social backlash for it.

So don't ever, ever tell me that FA is some kind of passive deal, less of a worthy challenge than weight loss.

Maybe I should cut the guy some slack - after all, in other parts of the thread and with reference to the whole fat=unhealthy thing, he actually did seem interested in learning more about what FA actually is, as opposed to clinging to his preconceptions.  But at the same time, even ascribing the best of intent to his comments, the most charitable conclusion I can draw is that he has no fucking idea what the hell he's talking about when it comes to this shit, and should really, really, really just step back and listen and read and learn before trying to pass judgment on us again.

*I've never really tried to define my approach to personal development before; that was both harder and easier than I thought it'd be.

Adventures in Profitable Misogyny: A Feminist Walks Into A Spirit Halloween Store...

...pukes on their carpet, then turns right around and walks back out.

No, not really.  That would have made for a much shorter post (although I still would have found it entertaining).  No, my mood was more "horrified amusement" than "this is making me sick".  Sometimes, you laugh to keep from crying.

Come along with me on a magical adventure through WTF Is This Shit Land, aka the Spirit Halloween Store, as documented with photographic evidence!

The "his-and-hers" versions of Harry Potter knock-off costumes hanging side-by-side.  The male costume is a set of black robes (closed all up the front) with a not!Hogwarts badge on the chest and a red-and-yellow tie, while the female costume is a grey v-neck minidress with red-and-yellow trim, a tie, and a black short cape as a nod to the "robes" idea.

If you're a guy who wants to be not!Harry Potter for Halloween, you're in luck - a costume that's closeish to the movie, close enough to be easily recognizable anyway.  If you're a woman who wants to be not!Harry Potter for Halloween, you'd best be ready to SHOW THEM ASSETS in a skintight minidress with lots of cleavage.  Oh, you still want to look not!Hogwarts-ish?  Eh.  Toss on a token collar/tie/cape-thing, but make sure none of it hides the ASSETS that are meant to be the main event for a woman's Halloween costume!  *hums "One of these things is not like the other ones..."*

Apologies for the blurriness; two different she-pirate costumes, one with the "for fatties" yellow stripe and one without.  This pic was supposed to highlight the size ranges but you can't even see them, so I'll just tell you: the "regular" she-pirate costume says it's for sizes 12-14, while the "for fatties" costume says it's for sizes 22-26.

I'm curious.  What exactly are those of us between a size 14 and a size 22 supposed to do?  That's actually a *really* common size range, judging by which sizes we got most of/sold out of quickest when I worked at LB.  Is there a "semi-fatties" version I can't find?  Don't get me wrong, I'm glad there's at least one costume available for someone over a 20, which is where XL/XXL sizes seem to stop in these things, but the gap there struck me as really weird.

Avast!  It be the Pirate Wall!  Four columns of four hanging costume bags each, separated by a bunch of pirate accessories (eyepatches, plastic swords, etc) in the center.

I realize you can't see the specifics very well (click through for fullsize if you want to see details) but for those who don't want to bother with that, there are on this wall at least six different variations on she-pirate costumes in the "regular" size, along with a couple he-pirate costumes.  (As an aside, I had no idea there could be that many versions of miniskirt-blousy sleeves-corsety thing-scimitar.  Was it really necessary to have half a dozen different "types"?)  There is precisely *one* plus-size she-pirate costume.  Hope you fat ladies all have the same taste in color and detailing!  Similarly, though I didn't get a pic of it, in the "vampire/witch/generic gothic-ish dress" section, there were a half dozen different dresses in crushed velvet with drapey sleeves and laced-up fronts labeled "vampire" or "witch", including one that was a truly gorgeous shade of cobalt blue which I might have been tempted to buy...except there was only ONE "plus-size" costume in the section and it was the generic black with red lining type.  Thanks for saving me money by refusing to acknowledge diverse tastes among fat people, Spirit! 

Two costumes side-by-side, "Sexy Venus" (a pink and white minidress with empire waist and drapey toga-ish fabric hanging from the shoulders), and "Venus Goddess of Love" (the plus-size version with "for fatties" yellow stripe; costume is similarly styled but has a full-length skirt and is cream and red instead of white and pink, with an actual wrap-shawl-thing instead of attached capelet)

 If this doesn't perfectly encapsulate the attitude mainstream Halloween costumes take toward "plus-size" costumes, I don't know what does.  The "regular" costume is the "Sexy X" and bears little resemblance to whatever it's supposed to be, inevitably consisting of a minidress embellished in some costume-specific way, while the plus-size costume is full-length (gods forbid anyone should have to see FAT LEGS on Halloween, amirite?) and drops any pretense of being "Sexy" anything (because duh, fat people can't be and wouldn't want to be sexy). 

The military costumes section.  A bunch of military-styled hats/helmets/caps, hanging beside two costumes, "Camo Pants" (which are apparently for men, pictured with a guy in the aforementioned pants and white t-shirt with dog tags), and below that "Camo Cutie" (the women's version, a olive-green camo print minidress with either over-the-knee black boots or black thigh-high stockings, I can't tell which)

Oh dear.  For the record, there was a "camo jacket" hanging above the pants, also shown with a young man wearing it.  So if you're a guy who wants to go as a soldier (and doesn't that seem vaguely disrespectful to actual servicemembers?  Or is it just me?) you get a pair of pants and jacket.  If you're a woman, you either buy the men's costume, or you buy the "cutie" costume that's, again, the standard template of minidress embellished for the specific costume.  And of course, don't forget your dominatrix boots/sexy thigh-highs.  That's totally practical for a soldier, and that's how all lady soldiers dress, duh.

The other side of the military section: Two men's costumes showing what seem to be Navy dress whites and, I think, Navy everyday officer's uniform (khaki suit-looking thing), hanging next to two women's costumes: "Naval [something] Doll" (glare covered the second word, sorry), and "Desert Dolly".  "Naval whatever Doll" is a navy-blue minidress with red-and-white trim, a gold embroidered anchor on the flared skirt, and a white bustier-top, shown worn with white thigh-highs and a sailor's cap; "Desert Dolly" is a skintight digiprint-camo-print minidress and soldier's cap, shown worn with black fishnet tights and knee-high black boots and holding a black assault rifle.

Wow.  I didn't think the military section could get worse, but here it is.  The feminine versions of the military costumes are literally reduced to DOLLS.  It's right there in the name.  "Doll" and "Dolly".  Fuck, how blatant can you get?  "You are not a person in costume, you are a doll that looks cute in stylized versions of real uniforms."  A doll.  Wow.

I can't even imagine being a female servicemember going into a costume store and seeing this.  I'd be ready to strangle people and burn the whole place down.  Is this really all we see female soldiers, sailors, as?  Dolls?  Fuck that.

And in all of this, I didn't even touch on the rampant racism.  The "Mexican Man" costume that consisted of a poncho-blanket-thing, sombrero, and fake moustache, with the guy on the package holding a beer and looking drunk; the "Pocahottie" (I wish I were kidding about the name, but I'm not; you can find the exact one here online) that followed the usual minidress-customized, in this case with fringe and beads and a feathered headdress. 

Just as well I'm pagan and celebrate Samhain instead of Halloween.  It gives me leeway to redefine Halloween as "That one night at the end of October when skinny white girls are encouraged required to show as much skin as possible while delighting in racist stereotypes and sexism in the name of "dressing up" and "fun"." 

I think that's much more accurate.  What do you think?

Meditations on a Word: Flattering

Wherein I ruminate and ramble and share a brief moment of "ding!"...

I had this thought the other night.  I've gained weight, you see, from my high school size of a 10/12ish (US) up to around a 16/18 these days.  And I'll be honest, I'm kind of struggling with my self-image and how to feel beautiful in a body my culture emphatically and repeatedly tells me is UGLY and DISGUSTING and THE SOURCE OF ALL EVIL IN THE VERSE. (The irony, of course, is that were it not for such messages that made me feel unacceptably big even at my smallest adult size, I wouldn't have dieted my metabolism into the ground and gained 100lbs over the past 7 years.  Diet culture is what *made* me fat.)

Anyway, I was talking to myself about fashion, and clothes, and fit, and how to look good and more importantly, feel like I look good in my clothes at this size.  And I tried on for size (pun fully intended) the cop-out line of "it doesn't have to make me look skinny, so long as it's flattering."

But then it occurred to me: what else is "flattering" code for, in this context, but "skinny"?  We say clothes flatter us when they smooth our lumps and rolls, when they create visual illusions of height and a curve from waist-to-hip and fuller, higher, rounder breasts.  Hmm.  Smooth lines, height, hourglass figure.  What does that sound like? 

Why, our culture's oppressively narrow standard for female beauty, of course!  What we really mean when we say clothing "flatters" us, is "it helps us to inch closer to The Beautiful Body by camouflaging the body that is actually ours, veiling our real flesh in illusion."

Wow.  That's...not an improvement at all, is it?  "It doesn't have to make me look skinny, so long as it flatters me hides my body and makes me seem closer to the idealized standard."

As they say, it's hard to fight the enemy when the enemy has outposts in your own head.

I still don't know, after years of jeans-and-tshirts, what I want my fashion and style to look like.  But I do know, now, that flattering is not a concept I want anywhere near it.

Biology: 3, Anti-Fat Techniques: 0

So we know that diets don't work long-term.  And we know bariatric surgery doesn't work long-term.  Now, we know liposuction doesn't work long-term, either.  A study recently released showed that over the year following liposuction on the hips and thighs, new fat cells were created to replace the ones lost, distributed over different areas of the body (they're theorizing that it's because the liposuction destroys the supporting structure under the skin where the fat cells would normally grow).

Fat bodies cannot be willed, fooled, or altered thin.  When are we going to accept this?  When are we going to stop shaming people for a product of genetics and biology?  When are we, as a culture, going to take science seriously when it says, over and over again, No, this weight-loss thing just doesn't work, no matter how you do it?

But you know what the worst part of the linked article was?  The control group had been promised a reduced rate on their surgeries if they still wanted them, in exchange for waiting the time of the study before getting liposuction done. 

And when it was time, even after they had been told the study results, more than half of them went ahead and got the surgery anyway.

My heart breaks for them.