What Am I Missing?
Mel sent along this article, a Chicago Tribune piece about making obesity discrimination illegal. It was an interesting read, particularly because I found myself having a couple of “what the hell?” moments as I was reading it—which made me look forward all the more to discussing it with you guys.
[A]s a fat woman, I don’t want a green light,” said [author Sue Ann] Jaffarian, 55, who worries that such a law would validate what some consider unhealthy weight. “The downside of legislation is that the prejudice would go more underground.”
Wait, how is that a “downside”? Was the “downside” of the civil rights movement that the Ku Klux Klan wasn’t quite as cool anymore? How is prejudice being less publicly acceptable a “downside”? I admit, I just don’t get it. And then there was this:
It’s already difficult to prove weight discrimination because often it occurs when people are not hired, rather than fired, because of weight. But a law would stop “people from using weight as a shortcut, a quick and dirty way of making stereotypical assessments of a person,” said [attorney] Mark Roehling.
Um. How would the law stop what goes on inside someone’s head when they’re making hiring decisions or judgment calls about the people they meet? I mean, I agree that the law would be a great thing, but I think Roehling is overstating its power somewhat. I did like professor Anna Kirkland’s quote:
I think it would help mostly because it would send a message that fat people are equal citizens. It’s not in the litigation rates, but the rights consciousness that comes after legislation.
I’ve actually never heard the term “rights consciousness” before, but it makes perfect sense to me. So what do you think about making obesity discrimination illegal? What do you think would be the pros and cons of such legislation? And what am I missing here?
Posted by mo pie
Email us
It’s sad that such a thing should even be an issue. People should be accepted for who and what they are, period. NOT BASED ON THEIR SIZE. I hate all this picking on people with weight issues. It’s cruel and shameful.
Well, I’m glad I wasn’t the only one having those particular WTF moments!
I’m not a person who believes every social situation needs to be vigorously legislated, so my objection is more of a “we don’t need more laws” type of thing. But it’s tricky. With the ever-increasing viciousness of the sizist bigots, do we legislate now, or wait for the actual hate crimes to start, and people to be hurt or killed?
Sue Ann Jaffarian’s comment really disappoints me. (Well, the idea that anyone shouldn’t be protected from discrimination based on physical attributes really disappoints me regardless, but….) Her detective series features a smart, capable plus-size heroine who has more than one handsome man interested in her affections. Based on her cover picture, Jaffarian is also a lovely, plus-size lady. I guess it goes to show how conflicted we can feel about ourselves, even when we’re trying to be positive…?
Personally, I think adding weight and height to the current anti-discrimination laws is a good idea. Why anyone would think it’s not a good idea is beyond me. As you said, you can’t legislate what people think. POC are still not being hired because of their color, they just aren’t told that’s why anymore, the employer comes up with some other bullshit reason. I’ve never been told I wasn’t hired because I was fat, it was always that someone else had better qualifications or the job was already taken or they decided to move someone in the company, blah blah blah, or I wasn’t given a reason at all, just never heard anything more after an interview and they could see I was fat (and well-dressed, well-groomed, confidant, and capable, but none of that mattered, because I was fat).
Fat people are entitled to the same basic rights as every other person on this planet, and if it takes a law for us to get those rights, then so be it. That law won’t mean the battle is over, but it will give us another weapon to use in the battle against the fat-phobic bigots out there.
I support the law, too, but I kind of see what Jaffrian is saying. Discrimination against ethnic minorities is illegal, but it’s still prevalent (although considerably less so than half a century ago). You can pass a law, but you can’t change personal perception nor does passing a law amount to making weight-based discrimination less publicly acceptable. If someone has it entrenched in their world view that they hate fat people and that fat people are lazy and unworthy, the passing of such a law will only lead them to find new and creative ways to perpetuate that discrimination. So, in essence, discrimination continues, but because it’s more illusive, it’s harder to prove and deduce.
Still, her justification is as logical as arguing against the civil rights act of 1964 or against title IX discrimination or laws against hate crimes. The first step to stopping discrimination is to make it illegal and hold people accountable for their actions.
The sad fact is that Jaffrian is something close to right. People won’t be denied jobs because they’re “fat” they’ll be denied jobs because they’re “lazy” or because they “don’t project a professional appearance.” But then, they aren’t denied jobs now because they’re black, but because they’re lazy or don’t project a professional appearance. Both of those are perceptions and opinions, it is almost impossible to say they didn’t seem lazy or unprofessional in the interview if you weren’t there. It can be entirely dismissed as a one shot, even in the mind of the interviewer who rejected them.
It is absolutely necessary that such a law exist, but how many people truly believe that racial, sexual (orientation and gender), and disability discrimination is almost entirely eradicated because there are laws against it and people know better now?
The single most important thing to take away is that, even thought the law is now on your side, the fight isn’t over, even though most people think it is.
I think it is a good idea to pass a law making it illegal to discriminate against obese people. Whether someone can do a job or not has nothing to do with their weight, unless, of course, it is a physically demanding job. The only problem with having a law like this could be that it could be the basis for frivolous lawsuits by extremely obese people saying that their employers or restaurants or airlines, etc., are discriminating against obese people by not having special chairs or other accommodations for obese people.
It just baffles me that people are still asking this question. “Hmmm, should it be illegal to discriminate against a group of people based on any one particular trait they all share?” WTF. Abso-fucking-lutely it should be illegal. What the hell are they waiting for?
Here is a reason why this law might be really helpful. Anti-discrimination laws may help protect obese people when they go to apply for individual health insurance, or life insurance. It may also protect fat people who are being told that they must lose weight or they will be penalized in what they pay for their health insurance through their employer.
These would be good things.
Let’s face it, people who can’t stand to see fat will continue to be spiteful and ignorant even if the law was passed.
But I do agree with spinsterwitch that this law could assist to prevent insurance companies from denying or overcharging coverage based on weight, whether it’s through an employer or someone trying to get private coverage.
It may also protect fat people from being threatened with job loss if they don’t adhere to company-sponsored “wellness” plans that are becoming all the rage, and bills based on ignorance and shame, such as the Missouri bill introduced on banning fat and obese people from eating out publicly.
WOooo! Rights consciousness! Comps and graduate school coming flooding back! Um, back from the abyss, the rights consciousness literature argues that whether or not rights are legally efficacious, they are useful in forming a political consciousness that often leads to group action (for example, one scholar studied how women–even when they did not win sex discrimination lawsuits–became more politically active after the passage of anti-discrimination laws because of their consciousness as a group, their awareness of the problem, etc.) I think it’s an excellent point that while discrimination is always hard to prove, it is useful in naming a problem that people can identify with.
Um, that last sentence made no sense. I didn’t mean that discrimination is useful, I meant anti-discrimination laws are useful. But if you’d like to discriminate against those who mangle their sentence construction you have my permission.
I thought it was terribly sad that some of the fat people they interviewed said things like “I don’t want a green light.” What do you mean? You want people to be able to freely discriminate against you because of your size, because otherwise you might think you’re okay the way you are? Like, I need people to be able to express openly and without fear of retribution exactly how disgusting they find me, because if they aren’t allowed this I might become happy, and I don’t deserve that.
Further, those comments are heinous. I want to shout at them: “What would the result of this legislation be? You can’t hire or fire someone based on how fat/thin they are. WHY ARE YOU SO UPSET ABOUT THAT? Why is it so important to you to be able to discriminate?” And that lady who said, “I’m pretty sure that one time some fat lady didn’t hire me because she’s jealous of my ‘perfect size four’ body. That’s right, thin people get discriminated against too!” What a jerk.
Sorry this is so long, but it the article was upsetting to me. What would those people lose if this law was passed?
What would those people lose if this law was passed?
Their extremely precarious sense of superiority? We’d be eroding the validity of their hate, and that’s terrifying for some folks.
It’s also important to note, in light of the vagueness and ambiguity of her “green light” quote, that the reporter might have taken it out of context or distorted its original meaning entirely.
Beat me too it Rachel. I’m Not familiar with Sue Ann Jaffarian or her work, so I wouldn’t be willing to say either way. However, when ever I read a comment that doesn’t make any sense to me I always try to look at it from as many angles as possible. Including editorial spin and context. Unfortunately I’m also aware of the many-many fat people out there with self-worth issues.
Not saying that the Sue Ann HAS any self-worth issues. But sometimes even otherwise talented and intelligent fat folk are driven into thinking that we, as a group, don’t deserve equal treatment because of our ‘obvious weakness’. Being bombarded by ‘Fat iS EVUL’ messages 24-7-365 will do that to ya. It’s tantamount to pain stimulus conditioning or brainwashing. It doesn’t even occur to them they are, in effect, talking about and hating on THEMSELVES.
>Not saying that the Sue Ann HAS any self-worth issues.
Well, she blogged just a few months ago she started on a weight loss diet after being pro-FA all these years, so *something* must be going on.
People turn to the law when they want justice, if this was a conversation instead of a crusade, this kind of law probably wouldn’t be needed.
We’ve taken for granted how much we expect scientific knowledge to be pursued without fear or favour, what’s surprising is when it isn’t, or doesn’t appear to be, there doesn’t seem to be a whole lot we can do about it, which doesn’t seem right as it affects us the most.
Whereas in other areas of life we can go to law and have the case argued, properly.
People can be predjudiced if they want, but they will have to account for it, as opposed to the unlucky recepient. It’s about consequences, how much do you want your hate to cost you?
In this case it’s as if the law has become a better cleaner pair of hands than science/medicine, I find that the most unnerving in a way.
If we pass a law making it illegal to discriminate for a specific thing we are saying that everything we have not specified is fine to discriminate on. What is needed is a law that makes discrimination on all grounds other than those expressly or implicitly specified illegal. Therefore, when I apply for a job: appearance, viewpoint, home life, gender ethnicity, culture or political affiliation can not be considered but my attitude, job skills and experience can be used.
Even so no larger person is going to expect a job as a super model or other industry where the prime qualification is your appearance.
To have a law for each possibility will leave more laws than we can count.
While anti-discrimination laws are certainly a good idea, there’s a whole lot more that needs to be dealt with, such as society’s views and stereotypes.
I mean, anti-gay-discrimination laws didn’t stop my friend’s crazy right-wing brother from telling him he’d never see his niece and nephews again if he brought his boyfriend home.
“Well, she blogged just a few months ago she started on a weight loss diet after being pro-FA all these years, so *something* must be going on.”
Losing weight isn’t an indicator of self worth problems. As a size activist who it losing weight, I find that assumption offensive.
I agree, Liza. I think it’s not a clear cut issue. Some people might look at me and say I am not a true fat rights activist because I have maintained a weight loss of more than 100 pounds for five years. I think it depends on your motivations more so than the act itself.
Anna Kirkland, the awesome professor quoted in the article, just highlighted something via our Fat Studies group that I missed when I skimmed the article. Of the 8 people quoted, 7 are male and one female. Of the 8, only one person – the female – is identified by her body weight (in this case, as not overweight).
I find that a little disturbing that newspapers are still writing and thinking in this kind of gendered manner.
Wow, Rachel, I can’t believe I didn’t notice that. Thanks for pointing it out by proxy. Amazing.
i agree… any kind of prejudice or bias is a poison to society.
I think the answer to both is that it makes it harder to prove.
If you KNOW you have a cause of action, but as an injured party you have to rise to a certain evidentiary standard in order to convince a judge and jury of the same,
1) it’s probably going to cost you more money;
2) it’s probably going to cause you more stress;
3) as with everything, just because you have justice on your side and you sue, that doesn’t mean you’re going to win. That’s yet more stress — as a a result of the lost time and energy in pursuit of justice that you didn’t get, in addition to the stress from the other party’s/organization’s actions that caused you to sue in the first place.
In addition, you’ve got that constant low-level stress from being under constant scrutiny because you’re never sure that you’re not being accepted/not being denied the money/the job/the whatever not because you really can’t do /perform whatever the other party is asking you to do, but because they just don’t like the way you look — and are in a position to influence your life and withhold whatever it is you need, as a result.
No thanks. If I get to have a preference, I like my prejudice right out front in my face where I can see it.
It’s like the difference between staring down the barrel of a P-9 and knowing that there are landmines somewhere in the field where you’re about to step, and have to step, because there’s no other way to get where you’re going, but you’re not sure where those landmines are.
It makes perfect sense to me. They’re reporting from the perspective of the thin elite. They don’t want to loose their thin privleage.
FYI folks, Sue Ann Jaffarian addressed one reader’s concerns with how she was presented in this article in a blog entry >here. It appears as if she was misquoted, which may explain some of the confusing remarks. You can read her full remarks and position on her blog.