Post: #1

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/08/opinions/a...index.html

Quote:(CNN) By including Amy Schumer in its plus-size special edition, Glamour magazine not only touched off a minor uproar this week, but it also revealed something important about America today: Anyone can suddenly be fat.

Glamour listed Schumer's name on the cover as one of the "women who inspire us," along with people whose bodies fit the magazine's theme. Schumer chided the magazine in an Instagram post -- "not cool glamour not glamourous" — with the rest of her response toggling between a call for weight freedom and an attempt to disavow the idea that she be considered fat herself, ("I go between a size 6 and an 8").

Social media went wild, Glamour editors tried to smooth things over in tweets, and a new round of discussion on body positivity took off.

And why are people so concerned? Let me explain. The line between fat and thin shifts. Society "decides" for us. The same person with the same body can get different responses to that body in different situations. You may be reading a magazine and learn that you're fat, or get the signal from your doctor, or when looking for a size in jeans to try on. You may get the word when you're interviewing for a job, visiting (unhelpful) family members, going on a date or flying on an airplane.

Even the government changed its mind on the issue in the '90s, declaring 25 million Americans "overweight" overnight. So the great weight divide is hardly a hard and fast truth.

Fat is a floating signifier. It can attach to anyone at any moment. Ask Amy.
But why do we care what anyone weighs? Well, the stakes are high when being thin or fat determines whether you'll be loved, respected, hired, promoted, dated, married, able to travel, buy clothes, see people who look like you in mainstream media, get unbiased medical care, and count as a person -- or not. (And these are just a few examples.)

This is why when a magazine slips a thin person into its rare issue focusing on the so-called "plus" sizes, it's news. People rush to re-establish the fat-thin borderline.
Society is preoccupied with maintaining a hierarchy of pounds and sizes and goes to great lengths to provide scientific justification for it. But this is becoming increasingly unconvincing. (Just Google "obesity" paradox or Health At Every Size to see why.)

When internet trolls claim their anonymous attacks on people because of their weight are motivated by concern for health, it's time to redefine our ideas about well-being and who is allowed to enjoy it. What's more, weight bigotry especially targets women, people of color, poor people, disabled people, and LGBT people. So if we care about social justice, we need to be bigger lovers, not biggest losers.

Kudos, then, to Schumer for affirming fat people's right to exist and criticizing Glamour for moving the thin-privilege horizon below her size.

But what if she had said what I've been saying for more than two decades? What if she said, "So what?"

She made a good effort in that direction when she tweeted, "Bottom line seems to be we are done with these unnecessary labels which seem to be reserved for women." (Although I would add that men and people of all genders are hurt by weight labels, too.)

It is absurd (and surely unprofitable) that clothes in most stores stop being available at the sizes most people are. ("Our plus sizes are available online" is not an answer, it's discrimination.) When we're in fitting rooms, do we really believe that pieces of fabric can't possibly be cut wider but our bodies should be repeatedly reshaped (on the unmerry-go-round of weight loss and regain)? We are the judge of any garment, not the reverse.

No, it's not flattering when mainstream magazines think the majority of women should be grateful for an article or a special issue that mentions fashions we can buy.

That's why I also offer kudos this week to statistically average-size model Iskra Lawrence for her largely unapologetic comeback to an internet hater. He was so distressed by the sight of her that he claimed his entire country's health system would fall apart from fat people eating potato chips. She posted photos of herself in lingerie among bags of chips and a slo-mo video eating a potato chip then giving the camera the finger. She dedicated these posts to "anyone who has ever been called FAT."

What if being called fat — or actually being fat — isn't the end of the world it's been made out to be?

It's time to stop worrying about where we are on the weight hierarchy and start wondering how we'll be remembered for what we did (or didn't do) to make the world a better place for people of all sizes, colors, genders, classes, physical abilities and sexualities.

The second half of the piece is boilerplate fat acceptance gibberish which is already discussed ad nauseum around here. But in the first half, the author literally seems to believe that Amy Schumer is thin and Glamour is moving the goal posts by including her as plus-size.

A world where this person can be a recipient of "thin privilege" is not a world I want to live in:


If you're curious what the author herself looks like, it couldn't possibly be more in line with what you're picturing:


I'm off to the gym. Fat acceptance propaganda is strangely motivating.

Post: #2

I remember posting about the delusional author three years ago, she's a major heavyweight behind the fat acceptance movement

/thread-19283.html

(01-04-2013 04:29 AM)Emancipator Wrote:  http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/03/opinion/wa...?hpt=hp_c3

Quote:Editor's note: Marilyn Wann is author of "FAT!SO?" and a weight diversity speaker internationally. She is the creator of Yay! Scales, which give compliments instead of numbers.

I simply can not believe it, the author of the article is completely batshit insane. First image of her on google is a typical myspace angel black and white tactic and old picture

This is her without the touchups

Here's an actual quote from her's

Quote:being fat [is] just like [...] being short or tall, or black or brown. These are facts of identity that cannot and should not be changed. They are birthright.

And this bitch declares herself a fit and fat person, she isn't fat at 285lbs & 5'4 she's fucking OBESE! Yet she still complains that the majority of health problems are caused by health equipment not catering to fat people.

Post: #3

I wish for the apocalypse. That way, modern healthcare would fall apart and the obese people would die off quickly without all their pills.

Post: #4

Amy Schumer said that she fluctuates between size 6 and 8... so she isn't considered plus sized.

Post: #5

Schumer is strongly advocating fat-shaming as she blows her cheese horn of minions to defend her against the label 'plus-sized.' If she were as body positive as she claims to be, she would not associate 'plus-sized' as a pejorative term.

Post: #6

WNB any of the fatties in this thread.

Post: #7

Honestly I wouldn't call her "plus size" either. She's chubby but still not quite "plus size" (yet)

Still WNB tho.

Would have banged 5 years ago when she looked like this:

Post: #8

As soon as the upper arms develop that flabby overstuffed sausage look then I think it qualifies as plus sized.

These fat bitches always insist on wearing halter tops or dresses with spaghetti string straps too.

Post: #9

She looks like a bag of mashed up asshole.

Post: #10

I don't think she's plus sized at all to be fair.

But she's got that unfortunate pure Germanic/Scandinavian genetics which a lot of times results in big wrists, huge calves, prominent booties and higher fat storage than normal. I went to school where girls like these were in ample supply. Typical corn fed mid-western white girl look. A lot of the ones you would even consider average sized were big in person. Not fat or chubby ... just big. It's just genetics.

It worked out fine for the guys because those blonde Viking guys could lift for 6 months and then rep out 315 for 8 easily. Often times looked big and wide with high body fat ... perfect power-lifting material.

Not a good look on the girls though.

I feel for her. In this case i suspect it's mostly genetics.

Post: #11

I wrote an article on Kings Wiki, in honor of this courageous CNN commentator: stop fat shaming!

http://en.kingswiki.com/wiki/Land_whale

Post: #12

Interesting, someone should tell the author that this is also currently on CNN.com:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/06/health/dia...index.html

Diabetes cases have quadrupled in just over 3 decades

The WHO says that between 1980 and 2014, the percentage of adults with diabetes increased from 4.7% of the global population to 8.5% (from 108 million to 422 million).The rise, it says, mirrors "the global increase in the number of people who are overweight or obese."

Or maybe CNN is just shaming them with their science and whatnot.

Post: #13

(04-08-2016 11:21 PM)Going strong Wrote:  I wrote an article on Kings Wiki, in honor of this courageous CNN commentator: stop fat shaming!

http://en.kingswiki.com/wiki/Land_whale

Can you link this to your article?

/thread-23719.html

Post: #14

(04-09-2016 12:00 AM)samsamsam Wrote:  

(04-08-2016 11:21 PM)Going strong Wrote:  I wrote an article on Kings Wiki, in honor of this courageous CNN commentator: stop fat shaming!

http://en.kingswiki.com/wiki/Land_whale

Can you link this to your article?

/thread-23719.html

Done. But, because of you I followed the link and saw these rather atrocious pics of this fame-seeking British land-whale lady. Can't unsee...

Post: #15

This is the first "plus sized" IMG male model. He's still quite above average compared with the average american male physique. No one can say that about fat chick models.

Post: #16

(04-09-2016 01:12 AM)Sidney Crosby Wrote:  This is the first "plus sized" IMG male model. He's still quite above average compared with the average american male physique. No one can say that about fat chick models.

And note the desperate way they try and conceal his fat in the photograph.

For my part, I think the criticism is justified. Army Schootme is not plus-sized. She is fat.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm