This article from the L.A. Times runs down some recent examples of fatism, such as the save-the-whales PETA ad, the mandatory “fat class” graduation requirement, and the proposed bill outlawing restaurant dining by obese people in Mississippi.

The pattern, the Times posits, is that slim people are “fed up” with the obese. Some choice quotes, bolding mine:

Michael Kellner, a trim, 37-year-old public relations professional who lives in San Francisco, is among the disgusted: “I am completely and utterly frustrated with rising healthcare costs due to the deluge of fat Americans taxing the healthcare system. I’m in shape and have been all my life because I don’t soothe myself with food all day.”

Way to snap judge, there, Michael Kellner! And you’re so right on. In fact, after reading your quote, I had to go “soothe myself” with a can of frosting, which I licked off my fingers because I couldn’t be bothered to find a spoon.

Actually now I’m thinking about the whole issue of self-medicating with food. I’ve done it: gained weight during periods of great stress, partially because I learned to associate food with comfort and love as a child. I’m sure I’m not alone. But it doesn’t mean some asshole like this Kellner guy knows what the fuck he’s talking about, or has a right to judge fat people on that basis. Sometimes self-medicating with food in response to legitimate stress is a better alternative to things like suicide or alcoholism. And you can’t, obviously, assume that thin people never do something and fat people always do something, which I think is the salient point. Anyway, moving on. Read more…

Posted by mo pie

Filed under: Advocacy, Art, Eating Disorders, Fatism, Health, Kids, Movies, Personal | 11 Comments »

I just set up a dedicated Twitter account for BFD, which is @bigfatdeal. I’ll be Tweeting links and news, and following all of you! And hopefully this will make it even easier for you to forward links that you find that we might want to post about.

Follow me here!

Posted by mo pie

Filed under: Meta | 1 Comment »

I’m sorry I haven’t posted anything since last Friday (it’s been a crazy week), but here’s a follow up that I was happy to read this morning:

So Carolyn, about an hour after your chat last week I called up my nasty bridezilla friend (the one who dropped another bridesmaid for being too fat) and told her that I wouldn’t be in her wedding. She asked me why and I told her that I thought her treatment of B was beyond the pale and that I can’t stand somewhere in support of it. So she got supremely angry (I believe the exact quote was “are you [expletive deleted] kidding me? Who the [bleep] are you to judge me?”) and told me in no uncertain terms why I was a bad friend. I learned that I was the third bridesmaid to drop out! She said she was trying to provide B a reason to lose weight. So I said, “so you’re a humanitarian?” which I probably shouldn’t have, though at first she didn’t catch that I was not being sincere. We ended the conversation super-acrimoniously.

“So on Sunday my mom calls me – A’s mom had called her to tell her that I was being flaky by dropping out of the wedding. Are we 6? I told my mom that A was a psycho hosebeast and my mom agreed, and then told me to remember to take the high road. So I sent her mom a check to cover the cost of my dress, and I sent a letter telling her that I value our friendship but can’t stand by her when I think she’s making bad choices that she will regret. And then at home, I cackled with glee when I heard from C that A is telling everyone that I ruined her big day and organized a bridesmaid revolt. I guess the other two who dropped before me made excuses, whereas I told her straight up. Is it bad for me to not feel any remorse that 3 of her 4 bridesmaids, and two groomsmen, dropped out (fourth bridesmaid is bride’s sister)? Because I feel really good.

Awesome.

Posted by mo pie

Filed under: Advocacy, Feel Good Friday, Tidbit | 17 Comments »

So the first part of this story isn’t so much Feel Good Friday fodder. A bride has apparently dropped one of her bridesmaids for being too fat, according to a letter sent to advice columnist Carolyn Hax.

The feel good part is that the letter-writer is one of the other bridesmaids, who is so appalled by this that she’s considering dropping out of the wedding party. Here’s the Q and A (bolding mine):

Bridezilla: So I just learned today that my college friend, A, disinvited another college friend, B, to be in her wedding in two months because B is fat (she’s about 5′3″, 200lbs) and would ruin the pictures and how everyone looks at her on her big day. She did tell me that if B lost some weight, she’d let her back in the wedding party. I can’t communicate in polite enough terms how offended and appalled and disgusted I am by A’s behavior. Her rationale is that B promised to lose the weight by the wedding but didn’t, and that whenever there is a big bridesmaid everyone is looking at her and not the bride. I am so angry about her nastyness that I can’t even think straight. Is it kosher for me to drop out in solidarity with B (with whom I am actually not that close)? What is the best way for me to communicate back to A that she is a gigantic [beyotch]? I am stunned. I don’t know if I even want to be friends anymore. FWIW, B hosted a bridal shower, has come to all the food tasting/clothes fittings/other assorted crap. She’s a good egg – we don’t click personally, but I am really at a loss for how someone does this. I heard from mutual friend C that B spent the morning crying her eyes out. I would too! What can I say to B that will help her?

Carolyn Hax: Everything you hope to accomplish, you can accomplish in one move: End your friendship with A (which obviously includes dropping out of the wedding). When A asks, tell her exactly why. B doesn’t even need to hear it from you; it’ll make its way around. I hope C follows your lead.

Good answer, Carolyn, and good for you, offended bridesmaid! (Via Snarkfest)

Posted by mo pie

Filed under: Fat Positive, Fatism, Feel Good Friday, Tidbit | 29 Comments »

At least according to OK! Magazine, which grabbed a photo of her, photoshopped all the baby weight off her, and slapped it on the cover with a headline reading “MY DIET SECRETS: LOSE 10 LBS IN 10 DAYS.” Must be seen to be believed.

Posted by mo pie

Filed under: Celebrities, Magazines, Photoshop, Tidbit | 7 Comments »

A fascinating article in the Boston Globe, called Fattened by Pills, discusses the often-unspoken correlation between taking antidepressants and gaining weight:

Many [psychiatric drugs], which are used to treat emotional problems including depression and anxiety, cause weight gain — often of the rapid and massive sort — as one of their “side effects,” that brilliant marketing term for what are simply negative effects of a drug. It is striking that the weight of many Americans has ballooned just as the prescribing of psychiatric drugs has surged.

And from the “holy shit” file:

Another disturbing link could be on the way. The fifth edition of the major psychiatric diagnostic manual, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V), is expected to be released in 2013. One proposal under consideration: listing obesity as a mental illness. That would be a mistake, since obesity can be caused by metabolic and other physical problems that are often undiagnosed. And because obesity can also result from psychiatric drugs, calling it a mental illness would create a vicious cycle: Someone is troubled, put them on drugs, they become obese, therefore diagnose them as mentally ill, give them more drugs.

This post at Big Fat Delicious discusses the article at greater length.

What do you want to bet that studies have never been done to determine how many fat people are taking those drugs? What do you want to bet that the reason those studies have never been done is because pharmaceutical companies don’t want anyone to know how many people went from average-size to “overweight” or “overweight” to “obese” because of those psychiatric drugs? After all, if those numbers were known, pharma just might have to figure out how to come up with drugs without those nasty “side effects” of weight gain (not to mention that they then couldn’t push their weight loss drugs, with all their nasty “side effects”, on fat people).

The whole post is worth reading. Pretty scary, actually.

Posted by mo pie

Filed under: Health, Science, Tidbit | 25 Comments »

The health risks of obesity may be exaggerated by (or in part caused by) the discrimination of health care professionals. Particularly, of course, when their patients are women. I’ll quote at length; the article really speaks for itself. (Shoutout to Suzy Smith, my Facebook friend, who is mentioned in the article.)

Recent studies have found, if you are an overweight woman you:

• May have a harder time getting health insurance or have to pay higher premiums
• Are at higher risk of being misdiagnosed or receiving inaccurate dosages of drugs
• Are less likely to find a fertility doctor who will help you get pregnant
• Are less likely to have cancer detected early and get effective treatment for it

What’s going on here? Fat discrimination is part of the problem. A recent Yale study suggested that weight bias can start when a woman is as little as 13 pounds over her highest healthy weight.

“Our culture has enormous negativity toward overweight people, and doctors aren’t immune,” says Harvard Medical School professor Dr. Jerome Groopman, M.D., author of “How Doctors Think.” “If doctors have negative feelings toward patients, they’re more dismissive, they’re less patient, and it can cloud their judgment, making them prone to diagnostic errors.”

With nearly 70 million American women who are considered overweight, the implications of this new information is disturbing, to say the least.

Indeed. Very unsettling.

Via @TheFWord Twitter feed.

Posted by mo pie

Filed under: Fatism, Feminism, Health, Science, Tidbit | 16 Comments »

This morning I was enjoying my morning coffee with Brad, and he told me about the Christina Hendricks controversy. (I mean, first we talked about how she is hot, then we moved on to the controversy. I mean, come on.) She was wearing a dress by Christian Siriano that got a lukewarm response from T. Lo and a thumbs up from the Fug Girls, who had great comments, as usual:

Christina Hendricks has the kind of fabulous bod that most designers wouldn’t know how to handle. Any time Project Runway throws the contestants a challenge to make clothes for mothers, or divorcees, or generally people who aren’t 5′10″and 100 lbs, they all start wailing and moaning that it’s not what their designs are about and it’s so haaaard, and blah blah blah. I always want Tim Gunn to come in and yell at them that if they can’t handle actual people’s bodies, then they have no business making clothes at all, because guess what? Sometimes people who eat carbs also want to shop and wear things on their bodies.

The New York Times, however, didn’t like the dress.

Cathy Horyn, a style blogger at the Times… quote[d] a stylist who said, “You don’t put a big girl in a big dress. That’s rule number one.” And seemingly to drive home the point of just how terribly big Hendricks really is, the Times ran an altered photo of her (left image) making her appear broader than normal.

After complaints from readers, as well as some bad press, the original photo was replaced (right photo) along with an update explaining that it “was slightly distorted inadvertently due to an error during routine processing.” Sure. Forget the distorted photo; I’d like an explanation for Ms. Horyn’s distorted view of the female body.

I think it’s clear that the photo was distorted and it was probably inadvertent. But would we call her a “big girl”? And if we did, is that so bad? And do you hate the dress on her? (I love the dress, but not so much the color on her.) And is she the hottest woman alive, or what? Discuss!

Posted by mo pie

Filed under: Celebrities, Christina Hendricks, Fatism, Mad Men, Media, Project Runway, TV | 40 Comments »

I’d never heard of The Book Group, which is apparently a British show about, well, a book group. The second episode features a nice moment with an actress who presumably would be considered OMG FAT by the standards of American television, but is allowed to be sexy in Britain!

You can see her at around the 6:40 mark in the shot below. She’s beautiful, as you’ll see. Also, there’s a shot panning slowly down her body, she’s shown as she walks away, she’s covered in drops of water… the whole thing. (And incidentally, she also mentions just having swum 50 laps.) Here’s the episode clip:

H (who sent me the link) said that at first she was waiting for a joke based on the actress’s size, then for some kind of self-congratulatory meta-reference about how open-minded they’re being, but there was nothing. She gets to be a hot chick, no strings attached.

H also says the show is worth watching, and as a lover of books, book groups, and British television… sign me up! Thanks, H.

Posted by mo pie

Filed under: Celebrities, Fat Positive, International, TV, Video | 21 Comments »

Rachel has a great post up about making donations to help Haiti, with a list of reputable charities. I hear that Doctors Without Borders is doing especially good work on the ground; right now they are working on setting up an inflatable hospital. But there are also stories out there of people posing as charities to scam money. So make sure you donate through their website directly.

Posted by mo pie

Filed under: Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

More celebrity gossip, only not in blind item format this time. Marissa Jaret Winkour is leaving as the host of Dance Your Ass Off. She will be replaced by Mel B., of Spice Girls fame.

This is what Marissa had to say: “Marissa’s reasons for not returning to season 2 are the following: the format of the program did not allow her to interact with the contestants and offer them encouragement and support, and criticism she received from producers regarding her appearance.”

To me that means the producers thought she was fat and probably told her this more than once. This is a show about people embracing who they are as people. Sure, the idea is to lose weight, but to throw someone up there like Mel B who weighs what, 85 pounds kind of defeats the whole purpose. Was Marissa the best host in the whole world? No, but allthe producers are doing is telling the world they don’t believe what they are trying to sell on the show. They are trying to sell that all people no matter their size are beautiful, but then kick off Marissa and replace her with someone who is not typical and instead is probably a size zero and has fake breasts and says this is the ideal.

The producers’ official statement is that the core fans of the show grew up Spice Girl fans so this is what they really want. Uh huh.

Here are some of the comments about the change:

Marissa’s personality makes me want to rip my eyeballs out. Mel B is more engaging, I believe. If this is a program about weightloss via dance, than I would think Mel B is more inspirational than Marissa since Mel B has successfully shed some pounds.

Marissa was one of the big girls on DWTS and I was always embarrassed for her whenever the male partner had to lift her. I didn’t think it was possible to do it without him getting a back ache and dropping her. She was heavy and certainly not graceful enough for the dances. Also she’s very bubbly but in a way that I find annoying.

This is one of my guilty pleasure shows. I love dancing and I love seeing everyone’s journey through the weight loss. I must say though, Marissa was one of the bad points of the show, as far as I’m concerned. I didn’t think she did that great of a job of hosting, but what really was disturbing is just how TIGHT the clothes she wore on camera were. Seriously, she looked like she was going to pass out from not being able to breathe most of the time. She always looked extremely uncomfortable in the clothes. I’m no fan of Mel B. but to be honest, I care more about the contestants than who’s hosting it, so it doesn’t matter to me. The contestant’s stories were always very inspirational to me. But I must admit, it does kind of send a bad message to get someone thinner to host.

I don’t watch the show myself, because the weight-loss component seems shirty to me. Your thoughts?

Posted by mo pie

Filed under: Celebrities, Dance Your Ass Off, Hairspray, Music, TV | 9 Comments »

Ah, the 1-800-GET-THIN billboards. Although I’m sure they’re all over the place, I seem to only see them all over Los Angeles. I can’t help but imagine a sinister undercurrent. Dear Aspiring Actress Who Just Moved To Hollywood… Have lap band surgery, which is a total breeze, obviously, and be transformed into the ideal thin blonde movie star type! Become the next Charlize Theron today! Maybe I’m reading too much into it.

Anyway, if you’re a longtime reader, you know my weakness for celebrity gossip, and when I saw a recent blind item, I was reminded of those billboards. This tidbit comes from from Lainey Gossip:

Our perfect parent found a permanent way to keep the weight down – with a lap band installation a few years ago. At the same time, she thought she’d help out her little girl too. By pretty much forcing her teenage daughter to have one put in as well. The child protested but to no avail. And better still, instead of paying out of her own pocket, she insisted that the surgery be funded out of her precious’s bank account. Well in hindsight, no wonder.

It’s hard to imagine this could refer to anyone but Courtney Love, who recently lost custody of 17-year-old Frances Bean Cobain. There have been rumors floating around for a while that Courtney had this surgery, and the references in the blind item to her being out of money (and dipping into Frances’s trust fund) also make sense.

Also, Frances’s medical records were reportedly sealed because they “reveal details of Frances’s relationship with her mother.” Hopefully Courtney can get it together and Frances will keep a good head on her shoulders. I wish nothing but the best for The Bean, and for Courtney too, for that matter.

One would also hope that WLS would be viewed as a serious undertaking, not a way to drop a few pounds from an already slender frame. And that a teenager wouldn’t be forced into having lap-band surgery without her consent. And furthermore, that there would be plenty roles for actresses of all shapes and sizes and races and body types in Hollywood. I mean, while I’m wishing for things…

Posted by mo pie

Filed under: Celebrities, Courtney Love, Gossip, Kids, Music, WLS | 8 Comments »

It’s Feel Good Friday, and as such, I’m going to throw out some links to a few things on the Internet I read this week with pleasure.

I already recommended this on Twitter, but Roger Ebert’s essay about no longer being able to eat or drink is fantastic. The man is a national treasure. (Via.)

When we drive around town I never look at a trendy new restaurant and wish I could eat there. I peer into little storefront places, diners, ethnic places, and then I feel envy. After a movie we’ll drive past a formica restaurant with only two tables occupied, and I’ll wish I could be at one of them, having ordered something familiar and and reading a book. I never felt alone in a situation like that. I was a soloist.

After I saw The Princess and the Frog, which I loved, I of course had to go see what Racialicious had to say about it, especially since I had read this essay, discussing some concerns.

I had been on the fence about our heroine’s role as a southern belle’s maid. Yes, it’s [canon] for fairy tale protagonists to begin their stories having low status, but a black heroine who is a domestic could be legitimately read not as a fairy tale trope but a reinforcement of real world racial denigration. Some may claim that it would be historically accurate for a 1920’s black woman to be a maid, but Disney doesn’t even care about historical accuracy when animating actual history (for example, Pocahontas.) Disney films often include generic European landscapes and eras and anachronistic details and social conventions. Let’s consider Beauty and the Beast. Did French peasants like Belle’s dad really have the time and resources to invent complicated gadgets? Should Belle have had access to so many books or even have been literate?… Deciding to suddenly be historically accurate while telling a fairy tale about a black princess seems a little suspect. Not to mention after decades of singing candlesticks and flying carpets, it’s a little late in the game to start claiming a commitment to realism.

(Another good essay about a recent movie is this one, which articulates some problems with Avatar.)

And finally, while we’re all smartypantsing around thinking about things like feminism and race and privilege and gazes, Linda Holmes at NPR has a great piece up about how transforming Penny from an object of the male gaze to a protagonist in her own right has made The Big Bang Theory a better show.

This is, in maybe the most literal form in which you’ll ever see it, the male gaze. She exists relative to Leonard and Sheldon’s arrival home (just standing there reading a magazine in profile with the door open!), relative to their door, relative to their apartment. It’s a comedy, but it’s still true. This is it; this is the thing. This is the thing people talk about where she’s not really herself, she’s just the lady standing in the doorway.

How about you; read anything good lately?

Posted by mo pie

Filed under: Celebrities, Feel Good Friday, Feminism, Movies, Question, Race & Ethnicity, TV | 9 Comments »

We try to stay above the blogging fray here at BFD (or rather, I think Mopie and Jenfu do, as they are smart and I am not), but there’s no way for me to get to the sweet spot without giving some backstory.

Swistle is a blogger who has recently decided to mention that she identifies as being fat.) Well, she called it “coming out”, which I found a little strange, because was she just not commenting on her size or was she actively pretending to be thin? Was she switching adjectives the way that people who are closeted about their sexuality switch pronouns? Did she tell blog anecdotes, swapping the words “Forever 21″ and “size two dress” for the mythological boutique and size 18?) (This is not the point of this post and this is also why Mo and Jenfu are smarter than I am).

Kristin, who is one of those sporty bloggers, was inspired by the resulting uproar in the blogosphere to write a “fat is not healthy” reaction post where she reveals that she had a self-diagnosed muffin top, so therefore her metabolism is on par with everyone else in the world and what works for her should work for the world. She also then goes on to detail all of the ways she makes herself uncomfortable through exercise to achieve this ideal, which she does because:

I  do love that I don’t feel the need to turn off all the lights before I get into bed with Corey.  And yes, it’s an immense relief to not have to contort myself into various hunched self-conscious positions in order to make myself less conspicuous at the swimming pool.  I am no longer persistently tired, and when I do eat some cheesecake on special occasions, it tastes a thousand times more delicious because it’s a novelty – I’m not eating it every day.

Whoa, whoa, whoa.  I read that and almost spit out my mouth full of my daily cheesecake. Isn’t it interesting that two totally opposing bloggers can be basically writing posts about exactly the same thing? They’re both revealing things about themselves, both wading through layers upon layers of body insecurities in attempts to earn positive reinforcement.

Thankfully, the inimitable Mimi Smartypants takes it on home for everyone:

Listen hard, now: you never did have to turn out those lights or hunch into those positions. No one has to. Not at one hundred or three hundred pounds.

In fact, I order everybody to fuck with the lights on and carry a sign at the swimming pool that says YEAH I’M IN A BATHING SUIT. Maybe that second part is unnecessary. I’ll leave it for you to decide.

Sing it, Mimi.

Posted by Weetabix

Filed under: Feminism | 30 Comments »

So, there’s a dating website called beautifulpeople.com, which describes itself as an “elite” website for “exclusively beautiful” people. This state of beautifulness is apparently determined by a HotOrNot-style online vote.

To become [members], applicants are required to be voted in by existing members of the opposite sex. Members rate all new applicants over a 48 hour period based on whether or not they find the applicant ‘beautiful’. Should applicants secure enough positive votes from members, they will be granted a full membership to the BeautifulPeople Network… BeautifulPeople does not define beauty it simply gives an accurate representation of what society’s ideal of beauty is.

Hmm. Okay, I guess it’s a website for people who enjoy the societal beauty ideal and prioritize that in finding a mate. Are these people superficial and shallow, or are this merely a way for people to date people within their physical preference, like a BBW dating site? (And I could have sworn we’d talked about BBW dating sites in the past, but now I can’t find the discussion…)

So that’s my first question. But here’s where it gets even more interesting: the site recently kicked off 5,000 people who had “let themselves go” (ugh, hate that phrase) over Christmas. Which obviously means that gaining weight automatically = a loss of beauty in the eyes of the “societal ideal” which obviously we already knew.

“We responded to complaints by moving the newly chubby members back to the rating stage. This is the same as having them re-apply,” said Greg Hodge, the managing director. Mr Hodge said the “festive fatties” had become an annual problem. “Every year we see that some of our members from western cultures eat and drink to excess over the holidays and clearly their looks suffer,” he said… In an attempt to soften the blow to those given the boot, the website sent details of fitness centres where they could work off their holiday excesses.

Robert Hintze, founder of BeautifulPeople.com, said: “As a business, we mourn the loss of any member, but the fact remains that our members demand the high standard of beauty be upheld. Letting fatties roam the site is a direct threat to our business model and the very concept for which BeautifulPeople.com was founded.”

My first thought was honestly, you reap what you sow. The entire idea of the website is to be “un-PC” and inflammatory and hate on fat people; if you join in the first place and start voting on people, you know what you’re getting yourself into. Which brings me to my second question: do you agree or disagree?

Thanks to @Splend via Twitter for the tip!

Posted by mo pie

Filed under: Question, Sex & Romance | 33 Comments »

The good news: there’s been more young adult fiction lately featuring fat teenage protagonists. The bad news: the covers of the books don’t actually show any fat teens. This post at Stacked offers a nice string of examples showing body parts instead of girls, pictures of food instead of girls, and girls who are supposedly “plus sized” but are in fact not plus sized at all.

I’m sure you can’t forget the Liar controversy, where the cover featured a white girl when the main character was clearly not white. Why is it we put thin on the cover when the character isn’t (and in some cases is JUST ALRIGHT WITH THAT?).

So I want you to tell me: why can’t we do this? Can you find me a cover with a fat girl who is — how do I say this — a normal, every day person? We know our world isn’t full of perfect bodies and we know we want people to come to love who they are, but if we can’t see it in the world (especially in books that are meant to highlight these said issues) how can we make people believe they are ok?

The comments are good too; Amanda brings up a related point right off the bat:

I think there’s a tendency in general to show only pieces of women on book covers. It’s true there are books with whole thin women on the covers, but in general most covers are pieces of women. I think it’s odd because it objectifies women and has us seeing them as it. “IT’s a butt.” Not “oh there’s a woman with a big round butt.”

It’s true; it’s like a variation on the headless fatty. I guess because body parts are less specific than a specific person? Also chicklit often = a pair of shoes on the cover. Because GIRLS LIKE SHOES.

I’m actually writing a YA novel with a plus sized protagonist right now, which makes this issue even more complex for me. I understand that many teen girls who think they’re “fat” and relate to the world like they’re “fat” are actually pretty average looking or what most would call “chubby”; that was certainly true for me. By avoiding putting a specific person on the cover, that does eliminate the compare-and-contrast problem–”I can’t relate to her, she’s not even fat!”

When my book is inevitably published in mass market paperback (just throwing that out there, universe), I’m not sure I’d want to have my main character on the cover, now that I think of it; I don’t usually like covers with people on them because it gets in the way of my ability to imagine the characters. Maybe I will select (with all my power that I will have as a bestselling young adult author, right, universe?) something else emblematic of my story, more universal.

Certainly not, however, an Oreo cookie.

Thanks to Wendy for the link!

Posted by mo pie

Filed under: Art, Books, Fat Positive, Fatism, Feminism, Media | 10 Comments »

But man, these pictures are hot.

V Magazine has released a second editorial from the forthcoming issue entitled “Curves Ahead” that is sure to spark up more debate. It features 5 plus models in everything from swimwear to lingerie to denim to a Lady Gaga-esque leotard. The editorial, shot by Solve Sundsbo, is filled with beautiful woman who have hips, thighs, and maybe a little belly pudge and muffin top but they are all working it for the camera. See for yourself.

A little NSFW!

Posted by mo pie

Filed under: Art, Celebrities, Crystal Renn, Fat Positive, Magazines, Media, NSFW | 11 Comments »

And I’m going to be spending it with the fam. Feel free to use this as an open thread if there’s anything we should all know about or if you need to vent because your family makes you feel guilty about how much you weigh. (Oh, is that just me? Nevermind.) (Now I feel bad because my family totally didn’t do that and was awesome. I TAKE IT BACK, FAM!) In the meantime, I hope you all enjoy whatever holiday or holidays you care to celebrate this week! Happy holidays, everyone!

Posted by mo pie

Filed under: Meta, Personal, Tidbit | 11 Comments »

Passive Aggressive Notes is a website that features… um… passive aggressive notes. This one was received by a group of three diners who out were having lunch, and were passed a note by a woman at the next table, who signed her name Angela. You can read the whole note at the site, but here is an excerpt.

Please don’t get hurt, but the (3) of U should loose weight. I know it’s hard. It is certainly hard 4 me. But I feel better afterwoords and validated, and accomplished. [sic]

And she left her phone number! Stephanie C. sent in the link and added:

The nerve. I don’t care if she had the best of intentions or the very worst, it was not her place to comment and none of her business in the first place. And the “please don’t get hurt but…” does not excuse her from what she says. It’s like saying “I don’t mean to be mean but…” Yes, yes you do mean to be mean, but you don’t want to think of yourself as mean so you try to write what you’re doing off as something other than what it is – being mean – by premising it with a statement of intention so that if (or when) the other person flies into a murderous rage and cold-cocks you for being an insensitive jerk it’s their fault, not yours. (Sorry about the overwhelming number of coordinating conjunctions in that last sentence.)

I love a girl who knows her coordinating conjunctions, and I couldn’t agree more. FAT PEOPLE KNOW THEY’RE FAT, ANGELA. And thanks, Stephanie!

Posted by mo pie

Filed under: Fatism, Food, Tidbit | 26 Comments »

I knew about Madison magazine from Project Runway Australia, as it is the Elle/Marie Claire of that show (“The winner of Project Runway will receive a spread in Madison magazine…”). Now Beautiful You has a post about the plus-sized celebrities who posed nude for their October issue. More pictures at the link; mildly NSFW.

The woman pictured here, Fiona, apparently lost a lot of weight on The Biggest Loser, regained it, and then settled at this current weight. The photos are lovely, but I particularly enjoyed Beautiful You’s articulate critique of this Daily Telegraph article, which chose to report on the Madison spread in a divisive way.

While I do like the magazine spread and what it’s trying to achieve, I must admit to loathing the way the Daily Telegraph has reported on it. Why is it necessary to proclaim that this story means “the size zero backlash has arrived.” How gross and banal. Such reporting only serves to say that if we embrace people other than a size zero, this then means that body shape is not ok. That’s not what this is about at all. Many people are naturally thin, just as many people are not. This should be about encouraging people to have an appreciation for their own particular size and beauty and recognise that it is possible for everyone to feel great about themselves not matter what dress, jean or bra size they may wear. It should not involve beating up on any particular ’size’ and therefore person.

The article also mentions this ridiculous Marie Claire competition that asked readers to ‘vote’ on their favourite body type from a range of women ranging from thin to what would be considered a plus model size. Once again, this serves no purpose except to get women to compare body types (a known killer of positive body image development) and ‘pick’ what is best. Don’t you get it media? The best body shape for anyone is the one they feel happy with and can only be chosen by them, not you. No-one else gets to judge or vote on what that body shape is and we don’t need you to tell us people supposedly ‘prefer’ women to not be too thin. That’s not newsworthy at all so why the nasty competition?

Maybe we can start the size-zero-backlash backlash.

Via Feed Me!

Posted by mo pie

Filed under: Advocacy, Biggest Loser, Celebrities, International, Magazines, NSFW, Project Runway, TV | 8 Comments »

Watching less TV = weight loss! At least that’s what the headlines will be saying about this “not statistically significant” study of 20 people whose TVs were electronically restricted. When their TV watching was cut by half, they burned more calories.

Overweight and obese individuals whose TVs were fitted with an electronic “lock-out” device to cut their viewing by half ended up burning more calories than they consumed, researchers found…

The 20 volunteers whose TV-watching was electronically rationed burned 244 more calories than they consumed each day. In contrast, 16 similarly overweight individuals who did not have a limit imposed on their TV viewing consumed 57 more calories than they burned each day. The findings were not statistically significant, but suggest that cutting down on TV time can increase activity and improve the body’s energy balance.

I look forward to losing weight now that Glee, Mad Men, Top Chef, and Project Runway are all off the air. Of course, American Idol comes back on in January, and it airs like six nights a week, so my diet will soon be over.

Posted by mo pie

Filed under: American Idol, Glee, Humor, Science, TV, Weight Loss | 20 Comments »

In case you’re wondering where I’ve gone this week, it’s finals week (well it’s the first of two finals weeks, but we won’t talk about that) and I am busy writing, giving, and grading finals! In the meantime I’m loving the fashion do’s and don’ts you guys have come up with; it’s given me wardrobe inspiration. Although I don’t have time to go shopping. Which, considering that Christmas is coming up in two weeks, is a whole other problem.

A-ny-way. I’m posting to say hi! And also that Go Fug Yourself’s take on Kate Moss is hilarious.

As I’m sure you’ve read, Kate Moss here has been getting some flack for saying that her motto is, “nothing tastes as good as being skinny feels.” Which I actually find hilarious because she totally plagiarized that from Weight Watchers. I hope she follows that statement by telling us that her actual motto is, “Call Jenny!” and then, later, that her new actual motto is, “a shake for breakfast, a shake for lunch, and a sensible dinner.”

Then there’s a shout-out to mac and cheese, and Jessica makes fun of her outfit. Good times.

Posted by mo pie

Filed under: Celebrities, Diet Talk, Meta, Personal, Weight Loss | 8 Comments »

I realized the other day while purchasing yet another sweater with horizontal stripes that I actually have a lot of clothes that have stripes on them. For a long time that was a big fashion no-no in my brain, because STRIPES = FAT = OMG! = AAH! But then I stopped worrying about it. My wardrobe is pretty much divided between black clothing and clothing in obnoxious colors. Stripes are not a don’t, and neither are crazy colors, but I do wear a ton of black, and I do try to avoid loose, baggy clothes as much as possible. And I recoil at the sight of appliques. How about you? What are your fashion do’s and don’ts?

Posted by mo pie

Filed under: Fashion, Personal, Question, Tidbit | 43 Comments »

I was working on a post recently that involved some kind of pun about plus-sized paper dolls, and then I wondered if there were any plus-sized paper dolls, and then found this link. Download both the dolls and their outfits from this site, and enjoy!

Posted by mo pie

Filed under: Art, Feel Good Friday, Tidbit | 4 Comments »

Thanks to @lilowen, who apparently has a long memory, for the heads up on this item!

We first wrote about Sara Rue all the way back in aught six, when she lost a bunch of weight and it was speculated (by gossipy people) that she’d had weight loss surgery and had to have it reversed. Here’s what I said at the time:

[I]f she wants to go all Reese Witherspoon for the sake of her career, I guess more power to her. I can’t imagine that looking like yet another generic Hollywood blonde would be helpful, but let’s face it, I’m probably wrong. Thirdly, I am depressed to have lost one of our hot, young, sexy, curvy-chick role models. And finally, I think she was way cuter before. But then again, we all know that girls-who-look-like-me are totally my type.

Well, I guess losing a lot of weight didn’t magically kickstart her career; but she gained some of the weight back and is now working for Jenny Craig.

“My weight has fluctuated my whole life, and because I’ve been on television since I was 11 years old, everyone has seen it,” she explains. “I think like so many women in this country I have a problem controlling what I eat sometimes based on my emotional health”… Rue’s initial weight loss goal is 30 pounds. Then, she says, “we’ll see how my body looks, how I feel, and go from there.” Her first post-weight loss goal? “Rock climbing or wind surfing!” Rue says. “The things that I’m just too intimidated the size I am now to do.” But the big question remains: Does she want to follow in Bertinelli’s footsteps and sport a bikini? “If I look half as good as Valerie does at the end of this, maybe, possibly,” Rue says, smiling. “I don’t know if I’m more scared of sharks or being in a bathing suit. Maybe sharks, depending on the day.”

Someone out there tell me you’re a fat rock climber or wind surfer! This makes me want to go wind surfing right now, when I’m way bigger than Sara Rue. Sigh. I know it’s none of my business, but she’s so cute again! I’m on the Sara Rue weight emotional roller coaster. Why does this always happen to me when some celebrity signs up to sell a diet?

Posted by mo pie

Filed under: Advertising, Celebrities, Gossip, Reese Witherspoon, WLS, Weight Loss | 28 Comments »