Gentrification: Pushing Out the Working Class

In chapter four of Revolting bodies?, The Struggle to Redefine Fat Identity, Kathleen LeBesco mentions suggests that  a fat person reveals that the American Dream is a fabrication. The American Dream is the belief that anyone can achieve wealth regardless of his or her social class. LeBesco mentions:

Today, the socioeconomically advantaged are the only ones with enough time free from the ravages of wage labor and enough money to invest in personal trainers and pricey gym memberships to be able to cultivate the corps du jour— toned and supple, with a dangerously low percentage of body fat.

As LeBesco states, only the economically stable are able to afford the thin body. The brings forth plenty of questions such as:Is working class able to afford nutritious food? Can the working class afford personal trainers and gym memberships? Does the working class have time to exercise? Are there resources for the working class to obtain all of these at a low cost?

Therefore, being “fat” is deeply rooted in the economics of American government. Grocery stores such as Whole Foods that sell organic food are a prime example of how nutritious food is expensive.

The politics of obesity is specifically seen in gentrified cities where cost of living affects the working class. There are numerous cities such as Washington D.C., Detroit, San Francisco, Chicago, Los Angeles that have been gentrified and the victims of gentrification are the working class.  I have personally seen this in the city where I used to live, Santa Ana, CA.  All these cities feature high costs of living and low resources and their working class citizens are victims of the vicious cycle of gentrification.

Santa Ana, CA is located in Orange County, one of the wealthiest counties in the country, and its population is 78.2 % Hispanic with an obesity percentage of 46.5%. Recently a program has developed to help educate citizens about healthy lifestyles by providing free exercise course, free cooking classes, and low cost medical help.  This program helps citizens of Santa Ana access resources are usually not available to the working class but it does not help fix the source of the problem: gentrification. Gentrification pushes the poor by raising property value, and reaches out to wealthier citizens by selling property at low prices.

As a former citizen, I have seen up to four families living in one home in order to be able to afford rent. Citizens who were once owned small business in the downtown area where pushed out by high rent prices in order to bring in high-end boutiques and bars. Not only did this affect the business owners, it also affected the citizens who once relied on those businesses to buy affordable clothes and food. With cost of living at its highest, citizens are struggling to buy food; not just healthy food but food in general. Being thin is not on the mind of these citizens instead they are struggling to provide their families with basic necessities. 

 Gentrification is a vicious cycle that pushes out the working class, who work hard and get nowhere. LeBesco mentions that“ failed consumers, ethnic Others, the working poor—flunk their citizenship tests, rendering them the citizens profane of contemporary American culture“ and this population is a victim of the American economy. The fat body is a reflection of  the unattainable American Dream. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgJ87khal_s
http://www.publichealthadvocacy.org/research/overweightdocs2012/Overweight_Orange%20County%20fact%20sheet.pdf

The Power Of The Gaze (Foucault and Fat Politics)

"Under male scrutiny, women will avert their eyes or cast them downward; the female gaze

is trained to abandon its claim to the sovereign status of seer. The "nice" girl

learns to avoid the bold and unfettered staring of the "loose" woman 

who looks at whatever and whomever she please."

(Bartley, p.82)

In her essay titled Foucault, Femininity, and the Modernization of Power, Sandra Lee Bartley introduces a very interesting take on feminism by examining it through the lens of Michel Foucalt's idea of docile bodies. Although Bartley's main point is focused on how feminism is constructed and defined, she tip toes around the extreme effects of this phenomena on overweight people. There is an affirming connection of Bartley's discourse of femininity to that of Kathleen LeBesco's discourse of fat people in Revolting Bodies. Bartley talks about "the new discipline [that] invades the body and seeks to regulate its very forces and operations, the economy and efficiency of its movements." This is remnant of LeBesco's assertion that the body is part of a political allegiance, but Bartley pushes the concept a bit further. The body is definitely seen as a tool of labor, but in our modern times, it's more than that.

There is institutional control over all of the body's functions, activities and appearances. Everything conducted in the external world is subject to the power of the gaze; this patriarchal entity watching you from a theoretical distance waiting for you to make a mistake by somehow disrupting the space you are taking up. This gaze is the gate keeper of the status quo, ready to shame and laugh at any person that physically violates the rules. Both LeBesco and Bartley would agree, the status quo for women is thinness. But the gaze is not a tangible thing, which is why it is so easy for people to say things like "you don't have to hate and obsess over your body, you're doing it to yourself." It's hard to argue against this because generally, individuals don't call others out on being overweight, at least not in our adult world. There is an illusion of choice in the way we think, an illusion that we can dictate for ourselves how we feel about ourselves, but the individual is often powerless when confronted with large institutions and systems that make a profit from our insecurities.

It's easy to demonize civilians and place them at the center of social injustices, but in a world of celebrity, mass-media, and bombarding advertisements, literally everything we are predisposed to by way of being born is telling us how to feel and think, on top of telling us exactly what about our bodies is wrong or right. In a profit-based world, selling one's product has turned into selling one's soul. These companies telling us that we need this night cream, or that revolutionary weight loss program, do the bitting of the monstrous gaze.

Unlike Focault, LeBesco calls for a complete reconstruction of what it means to be beautiful--not feminine--but beautiful. She asserts that fat people become a threat to society simply because their bodies aren't asking to be sexualized. These bodies are overriding the power of the gaze. This is why there are industries centered around making fat people feel bad about themselves without anyone realizing. They make it seem as though fat people hate their bodies by nature, as opposed to the self perpetuating ideals set forth by they themselves for years. LeBesco wants to put the blame on citizens, and although there is some responsibility there, we have to remember that The Man is watching. It is lurking and it is waiting to inflict a life of misery upon people with alternative physical features by way of propaganda and consumerism.

It could be argued that this monstrous gaze is God himself, and a lot of people would hold true this argument to justify their discomfort with fat people. Gluttony, after all, is one of those deadly sins. The Christian/Catholic church is the most ancient source of influence in our American society and holds great influence in our political structure in arbitrary ways. Yes, there is an illusion of separation between church and state, but let's not forget that Obama had to undergo great lengths to prove his christianity and win the presidency. Gluttony, although having many implications on the basic idea of wasting resources on yourself by taking in too much of anything, is always superficially connected to fatness. Interestingly, there is a connection that fat people eat "too much" and take up "too much" room. Even in Dante's inferno, the punishment for gluttony is described as a giant obese looking creature that has you for dinner over and over again for all eternity. The truth of the matter is, however, that gluttony has not much to do with food as it does have to do with basic overindulgence in absolutely anything. Someone who is obsessed with running and does it excessively is, by definition, a glutton, but it is hard to get that across anyone's mind. Some would cry vanity, but why is it that an overindulgence in things that are considered "progressive" by some mythical standard, different than overindulging in things that are considered "transgressive"? Why is the obsession with fitness not as condemned as the obsession with junk food and binge watching Netflix?

This could be linked back to the power of the gaze and its mythical implications that makes it difficult to pinpoint, makes it difficult to lay blame. It's hard to understand why the world is the way that it is, and historical discourses never convince me, leaving me with a slight understanding and a lingering feeling that there is so much more at play that I could never articulate or even begin to process. But thanks to Foucault, we can kind of begin to comprehend the forces that are out there brainwashing our minds into the reconstruction of the body. We can blame the media, we can blame people, we can blame the bible. But something is missing.


Side Note: After reading the Sandra Lee Bartly piece, I was inspired to write a poem. Here's the link if anyone is interested. Only posting it because I realize this entry has a lot of not fully-formed thoughts and I think the poem says a lot more about this than what I've written above. 

Firm Body, Firm Character

Kathleen LeBesco suggests that the body type that is most difficult to maintain is valued the most.  We can extend this idea to moral character and personal habits as well - the most difficult habits to maintain (the ones that require the most discipline) are the most desirable.  The problem lies in how we assume that practicing those difficult-to-maintain habits automatically produces the valuable body type.  In reality, valuable characteristics, such as a good work ethic and self-control, aren’t always tied to food and exercise.  A person may have excellent self control in her work - always handing projects in on time and staying late at work even when she really wants to go home to see her family, but she might also happen to be overweight.  Just because someone focuses on one aspect of her life (her work) more than another (her body) doesn’t mean that she is lazy or undisciplined; it just proves that we can’t know someone’s personal habits and character based on observing their physical body.  LeBesco says that fatness carries certain negative connotations with it, such as laziness and dirtiness.  These connotations are all based on our propensity to try to see physical manifestations of internal character.  Perhaps this is one of the more potent reasons for our societal acceptance of thin, toned bodies, and our revulsion for fat bodies.

In addition to writing the article we read for class, “The Male Body,”  Susan Bordo is also the author of an enlightening piece called “Reading the Slender Body.”  This piece is very relevant to the discussion about fat that LeBesco begins.  The article explores some of the negative connotations of fatness that LeBesco identifies in Revolting Bodies.  I think one of Bordo’s most applicable ideas is that it is specifically the lack of firmness that is off-putting about fat bodies, not necessarily that their actual size is too large.  This concept explains why the bodies of men that Bordo examines in “The Male Body” are always so firm and muscular.  The “flab” is what we identify as visual evidence of inner laziness and lack of control.  It also draws an obvious connection between how we perceive someone’s outward appearance to reflect their inner self.

In chapter four of Revolting Bodies, LeBesco expands on this sentiment: “Fatness marks the individual as a failed citizen in a number of ways: as not of the dominant social class, as an inadequate worker and consumer” (59).  She is touching on another very important idea here: since slenderness must be bought here in the West with gym memberships, leisure time to go to the gym, and funds for expensive healthy food, it is much more attainable for folks who belong to a higher class.  This association of fatness with lower classes is also why our culture finds it so unattractive. 

“The key to achieving and maintaining a healthy weight isn't about short-term dietary changes. It's about a lifestyle that includes healthy eating, regular physical activity, and balancing the number of calories you consume with the number of calories your body uses.  Staying in control of your weight contributes to good health now and as you age” 

  - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

In “Reading the Slender Body,” Bordo writes, “On the one hand, as producers of goods and services we must sublimate, delay, repress desires for immediate gratification; we must cultivate the work ethic.  On the other hand, as consumers we must display a boundless capacity to capitulate to desire and indulge in impulse; we must hunger for constant and immediate satisfaction.”  Fat bodies are perceived as inherently unable to be good consumers while simultaneously they are scolded and looked down upon for being apparently being unable to overcome the desire to consume.  The temptations that 

Bordo mentions which are thrown in our faces are yet more obstacles we have to overcome to be well-managed, well-controlled individual bodies.  The excerpt above from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website is proof straight from the government itself that people are expected to control their bodies, as if bodies are inherently unruly.  If they are not policed, they will wander toward chaos - which in this case is obesity.  

Beauty...?: Feminine Masculinity and Feminist Minimalism

Susan Bordo begins "Beauty (Re)Discovers the Male Body" (a chapter from her book, The Male Body) stating that she is "putting classical art to the side for the moment" (168). While this is most likely a reference to something she discussed in a previous chapter, I, having not read the other parts of her book, was struck by this opening clause in a different way than she likely intended. For sure, let's not talk about classical art; instead let's consider something more contemporary.

Below you see two images. On the left, a sculpture by artist Michelle Lopez; on the right, a male model found on Google image search. Do you see a similarity between these pictures?

 

Hold onto that for a moment. Let's dig into Bordo's writing a bit:

. . . my gaze is invited by something "feminine" about the young man. . . . This model's languid body posture, his averted look are classic signals, both in the "natural" and the "cultural" world, of willing subordination. He offers himself nonaggressively to the gaze of another. Hip cocked in the snaky S-curve usually reserved for depictions of women's bodies, eyes downcast but not closed, he gives off a sultry, moody, subtle but undeniably seductive consciousness of his erotic allure. (171)

What she says here adequately describes our model above as well. And she continues: "For many men, both gay and straight, to be so passively dependent on the gaze of another person for one's sense of self-worth is incompatible with being a real man" (172). This idea that a "real man" doesn't need to be seen by others to be valued brought me to thinking of minimalism, an artistic style with which we are all (probably) familiar, at least in a cursory way. How do I make this connection? Minimalism was/is characterized by the use of pared-down design elements, simple shapes and colors, geometric abstractions. When we look at a minimalist painting or sculpture, or listen to a minimalist symphony, we get the idea that there is not much going on. These works, in a sense, resist meaning and interpretation; take Yves Klein's word for it--"even in its presence," such work "does not exist."

Minimalist art is provocative because in a sense, there is nothing that we bring to it as viewers. It does not require our interpretive gaze; in fact it resists and challenges us in its stoicism. Minimalism shares this aesthetic ideal, this lack of a seductive "dynamic tension" (Bordo 171) with more traditional portrayals of masculinity. "Stiff, engorged Schwarzenegger bodies . . . seem to be surrogate penises--with nowhere to go and nothing to do but stand there . . ." (ibid). Just like the mono-/phallo-lithic minimalist artworks, traditional masculine beauty does not call us to come closer, but finds its value in its ability to stand alone.

      

Both of the images that we saw at the beginning of this post are responses to this kind of masculinist aesthetic. Michelle Lopez, a post-minimalist sculptor,

explores the contested yet generative place where Minimalism and Feminism converge, diverge, and ultimately reunite. The languages she employs—material, form, and space—seek to “corrupt minimalism,” by making “macho sculpture feminine.” (see link)

The sculpture, Blue Angel, mirrors the male model with his leaning, seductive, feminine pose; each image modifies the minimal/masculine ideal of straight, simple, geometric unity through "bending" and "folding," and so that aesthetic rigidity remains but seems to "wilt," "melt," and "crease" into ambiguity/androgyny.

What does this mean? Bordo thinks that these ideals are positive, that it is incorrect to think of these models as 'sex objects' because "it seems to suggest that what these representations offer is a body that is inert, depersonalized, flat, a mere thing" (186). But I think that Lopez's sculpture is, if we accept the connections to a post-masculine aesthetic, a strong counterargument. Blue Angel, though provocative, feminized, dynamically tense in its composition, ultimately does not offer much beyond its critique of minimalism. In the same way, our male model is provocative simply because he is not rigidly masculine. As responses to monolithic masculinity, they in a sense remain characterized by their dialectical appropriation thereof, and this foundering is, I think, the tragic beauty that makes Lopez's sculpture so compelling. The creased metal sculpture and the muscled male model both lean passively, and though they call us to look closer, there is nothing to be found beyond the surface. They are, in the end, nothing but objects.

Empowering Femininity > Patriarchal Power

Sandra Lee Bartky opens her argument of the modernization of patriarchal power by stating, "early feminist scholars often emphasized how social organizations and institutions such as churches, police, schools, and medicine controlled women's behavior by rewarding girls and women who conformed to social expectations and punishing those who did not" (Bartky 76). But because of new laws, changes in social expectations and the fact that patriarchal power can no longer be taught by social institutions, the actions of patriarchal power in the 21st century United States are now internalized by both men and women.

Bartky mentions the idea of the Panopticon and how it was used as a watchtower for prison guards to watch over prisoners without them even knowing when the guards were there. She applies this idea to patriarchal power. Michel Foucault, a mentioned resource in Bartky's piece argues, "the rise of parliamentary institutions and of new conceptions of political liberty was accompanied by the emergence of a new and unprecedented discipline directed against the body" (Bartky 77). Women self-surviel more than men and the first thing we self-surviel is body size. Bartky suggests that in most cultures, it is socially expected for the female body to be smaller than the male body because women are suppose to take up less space than men. I halfway agree with Bartky; I do agree that society expects women to look smaller and to be less muscular than men, but I do not agree that it is for the purpose of pleasing patriarchal power in which women are subjected to become petite in order to take up less space. A strong emphasis on the differences between the size and shape of men and women is portrayed in the media. For example:

http://www.shutterstock.com/s/fitness+couple/search.html

This image shows a very large and extremely muscular man and his facial expression is incredibly powerful and somewhat threatening. He is only touching the woman with his one arm which is around her back. His fingers are spread out which shows a sign of firmness and power. The woman in the picture is in a leopard print bikini with her hair down and she has a significant amount of makeup on. Her position only reveals half of her body with emphasis on her leg and butt. Her position shows attachment to the man, especially on the man's muscles. In my opinion, this image is a good representation of patriarchal power because we are only revealed the woman's muscular leg while we can see the majority of the man's muscular body, which is strange since this picture is labeled as "Fitness Couple," implying both people are "fit".

Julia Serano tells us in her book, Whipping Girl, that the abolishment of patriarchal power will happen through empowering femininity rather than the feminist movement aiming to abolish the societal binary. Serano wants us to empower the feminist movement from the core by challenging the idea that femininity is lesser than masculinity. We can empower femininity through promotion, action steps, and by asking for basic human rights.

Weight loss, Eugenics, and the American Dream

In Chapter 4 of Revolting Bodies, Katherine Lebesco makes a comparison between 20th century eugenics campaigns and modern dieting campaigns. The similarities between the contemporary anti-fat bias and its basis in poorly discussed science (and in some cases pseudoscience) to the supposed scientific justifications for pre-WW2 eugenics programs are too similar for comfort, or really anything other than a great deal of worry. Both movements have been, by and large, perpetrated and orchestrated by or under the sincere belief that the supposed course of action is best for humanity as a whole, and both have been co-opted and recoded with entirely different goals in mind. I highly doubt that there is a cabal of medical professionals cackling over their amazing success in marketing and sell weight-loss products and lifestyles, but it is clear that there is indeed a very large industry that propagates stigmas surrounding weight in order to make a buck.

In Lebesco’s eyes, the primary comparison between eugenics and weight loss programs stems from the methods through which both programs are used to justify or stratify class and race based boundaries. Eating is cheap, eating healthy is not, and  thus by stigmatizing weight, we as a culture become complicit in a highly classist system of oppression. It almost seems that racism as embodied by weight stereotypes is a byproduct of this system given the almost universally higher degree of poverty among Black and Mexican communities. That’s not to say that racism and racist stereotypes surrounding weight have not taken on a life of their own and merged with larger issues of race- rather, their origin is in a decidedly Marxist system of oppression utilizing weight as a signifier for class.

Given that weight has come to signify a loss of control in our society, weight as a symbol of poverty is uncomfortably similar to conceptions of the American Dream- that all one needs is hard work, dedication, and a can-do attitude in order to become wealthy and successful. The truth is obviously a very different story, and yet, according to more than a few, poverty is purely the fault of the poor, who lack the willpower and dedication to better themselves. This line of reasoning results in ultimately the same justifications for stigmatizing fat- that the “afflicted” individual simply lacks the willpower to change their situation. Synonymizing poverty and fat simply allows for even easier methods of control and domination of the middle and lower classes by creating an easy catch-all reason for racist or classist beliefs- one that ties into our nation’s conceptions of capitalism and free will.

#AerieREAL, Yes? No?

In the introduction of Revolting Bodies, the author Kathleen Lebesco writes about the politics behind the revolting part of fat bodies. How it’s language and medical terms have devalued and elevated the word into its political aspect. In my last post I wrote about Emma Watson, and specifically how it was interesting to see the reaction against the #HeforShe camping. Most interesting the agents that want to maintain the status quo in this blog post I want to further that, in the way that Lebesco wants to explore her topics. But most interesting while trying to read her works and especially in chapter 5 where she talks about the industry and consumenrism within the idea that a new market for heavier women is opening instead of creating change and trying to allude that is okay to be fat it rather distorts with no message behind it and rather makes it so they can make a profit rather than help the stigma that goes behind being fat.

This chapter made me think of the Aerie campaign, #aeriereal where they have marketed their underwear using models without retouching, because in their ideal world no one looks like models.  My critique within it, its that just because you show a women with less photo shopped arms and more belly than the other models doesn’t  mean that it is okay. Lebesco mentions this in her book just because you have something marketed towards a certain group of people doesn’t mean that it’s okay and it does indeed represent that group of people, in regard to lane Bryant and this can apply to aerie campaign.

It is interesting to see the public climate that this campaign was built on, at this moment there are more agents working for social change, there is a need to be more inclusive. Jennifer Lawrence made it cool for some girls to voice that is okay to express how much you’re supposed to want the plate of French fries. Or at least a person watching her movies think it’s cool she talks about not being Hollywood Skinny. Jennifer Lawrence is revered because she is so honest and authentic. New generations that think different and young girls that express they don’t look like models, these are people aerie wants to target. I have seen those ads first hand and was skeptical of them as soon as I saw them, because aerie might have not chose to “photo shop” their models to look even skinnier but also they’re still models. While some might praise aerie for being so open to other body types, and not photo shopping, they are still not doing a good job on representing other kinds of women. Yes, having a woman of color in their campaign and a redheaded woman might seem like diversity, but I have never seen someone short, or a heavier model, or someone with type of different skin or blemish. What this campaign says, yes we won’t photo shop our models till skinny and tall as possible because they are not only worth for the bodies but because real and majority of women don’t look like that. But it falls short from creating any type of change, because while might it be a baby step if aerie did in fact use some photo shopping but not all. That women are allowed to have a little bit of a belly, some laughing lines. They still have to have luminous skin, blemish free, and look good in their panties. The campaign falls short of completing all of this, and it is in my jaded mind that probably it was just a marketing scam to people that want to see something different and included in those giant billboards that have coy, thin women looking adorable and sexy at the same time in lingerie.

The campaign might allow for some awareness but doesn’t do the active changing job that is needed to change the idea of women and how much they should want their bodies to look thin, and bikini ready. It doesn’t change that there are TONS of other types of bodies are beyond a size 2 or 4. It doesn’t bring anything to the table that might change the discourse of how we think of heavier people.

The aerie campaign does little to incorporate anything about visibility of other types of bodies or systematic change that one day we will accept other bodies instead of capitalizing them. Whether it is from the dieting and lifestyle industry that tells women they are not enough, and they should police themselves, be better, taller, skinnier. It just once again leaves the models to look “normal” and show how real they are, but silences other types of women.  

In the same chapter Lebesco also mentions that maybe industries that do acknowledge other types of bodies, and plus size bodies are a small win even if the company just wants to make money of the type of branding they are using. They are still bringing visibility and a small area of discourse that yes, women don’t often look like haute couture models. But it is not enough, Lebesco mentions another author saying the following:

“  When they disdain from blending in in favor of cobbling together a look from scattered resources available and becoming more brave about appearing in ways that defy the “tasteful” intentions of the commodifiers of corpulence, fashion is revolutionary; its newfound ability stymie fat oppression.” (73)

in other words,  how I interpret this, is that when one person that is being oppressed because of their body type takes charge. Takes fashion and creates them as their own accepting of their own bodies and without the commodification of the production and brand they are making a change. The industry and capitalistic ideals, tell us about the private and public the idea of image and how it is within ourselves to make ourselves better because we need to reach perfection, while spending money throughout it. But when we break away from the these ideas we can make a change on the discourse of the body and change in that case, the industry idea of being and always looking “tasteful” for anybody type. 

#realtalk with a aerie model, and how she wants women to be confident and own their bodies. 

Fetish? Or not??

http://2bdancing.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/i-am-not-fat/

As I was reading chapter three titled, “Sexy/Beautiful/Fat” from Kathleen LeBesco’s book, “Revolting Bodies: The Struggle to Redefine Fat Identity,” I was a bit taken back by the vivid descriptions from the magazine, “FaT GiRL: A Zine for Fat Dykes and the Women Who Want Them.” Truthfully speaking, I did not know much about fat politics, let alone knew it existed. But I am slowly learning something new about this topic as I continue to read this book. So, when I came across this specific section in regarding the sexual, erotic beauty in fat bodies, I did not expect it at all. My first thought when I read the descriptions of the photographs in the Zine magazine was is this not fetishization? Or did I come up with the wrong conception and that it was simply appreciating the female fat bodies?

I first came across the term fetishizing on Tumblr because people were blaming fanfiction writers for fetishizing homosexual relationships because they believed it to be damaging to the queer community as a whole in that the gay relationships depicted in these stories are not what they actually are in reality. I recommend reading this blog if you want to know more what I am talking about in terms of fetishizing and fanfiction. However, that is not my main purpose of this blog entry. I want to talk about apply fetishizing to fat women’s bodies, and what that really entails. Fetishizing is to make (something) the object of a sexual fetish. I found this definition when I typed it in google, and the fact that GOOGLE used this as an example makes me think things has definitely got to change: ‘women’s bodies are so intensely fetishized.’

In the following, there was an advice column where “The Invisible Blob” was worried about her thin girlfriend getting too much attention and feeling insecure. The response was along the lines of “FLAUNT IT!...Public Displays of Affection...you obviously have something very appealing to said gf…And by this, I mean more than a butt you can grip with both hands. You are great and beautiful. Revel in their pathos. Feel sorry for them.” After reading this, I was confused, and I had to read it a couple of times to fully understand it. I was unsure whether the responder was trying to say to the “Invisible Blob” to be confident in her curves because that is the reason why her girlfriend is dating her. But, this was not the case because the responder also mentioned “...more than a butt…” indicating there is more to the “Invisible Blob.”

What caught my eye and made me think was that “Unlike other liberatory texts that fete fat to protest the hegemony of thinness, FaT GiRL goes so far as to exclaim that fatness is the preferred way of being in the world.” I thought that this was biased because it is saying that fatness is the ultimate ideal while disregarding other physical body shapes. It seemed interesting that the author, LeBesco used this sexualized example of the zine to show that. Is she trying to prove that fat people should be focused on because of their sexual physicality?

To me, it felt like the author, LeBesco used the example of FaT GiRL to really demonstrate the sexuality of fat women and their bodies, but at one point, I thought it went too far when she included the detailed portrayal because I thought it was fetishizing fat women’s bodies. The reason why I thought so was because the magazine was highlighting and enhancing the fat curves of the women’s bodies. But, I did some outside research, and I found a personal firsthand experience from a women who have met people who were interested in her because of their fat fetish or they had a preference towards her plump curves. Through her account, I learned the true difference of fetishizing fat women and appreciating fat women. She said that those who were interested in her JUST because of her being fat were the people who had a fat fetish. They were the ones who were fetishizing her body, not who she really is as a person along with her body. On the other spectrum, she has met guys who truly wanted to get to know her personally, while at the same time appreciated her curves. Yet, the curves was not the main purpose of them meeting her. Since I learned this, going back to the advice column, I realized that it was not fetishization because the person who wrote the advice told the “Invisible Blob” that her girlfriend likes her because she sees something in her personality, not just because she is fat, and that she should be confident in herself as a beautiful person.

One of the examples of racial fetishization of Asian-Americans where in this picture, Asians are fetishized to look "cute" and "adorable" as if that is what they are supposed to be.

Not only can there be fetishization of fat women, but there are also fetishization of women’s bodies: breasts, legs, butt, etc. Plus, there is the fetishizing of racial women who are African-American, Asian, Latino, and so much more. What is more, I must not forget, there is fetishizing of transgendered, gay, lesbian, basically the whole LGBT group. All in all, fetishization of the women occurs in every aspect: body, race, culture, and sexuality. As of now, what is not surprising to me is that the most common form of fetishization in the United States is racial fetishization of women and even men. It is so prevalent in today’s society due to popular culture, media, and art. There have been so many instances where Asians and African-Americans are objectified and stereotyped. Even I have experienced this many times throughout the course of my life. I do not intent to get into detail about my personal account. Instead, I wanted to bring attention to the fact that fetishizing women goes in hand with objectifying and stereotyping women because both of these acts completely disregards who the women really are in terms of personality and intellectual; essentially what makes up a person. This occurs in many different ways, and that it is an issue in the topic of feminism.

So, as I finish up my blog, I talked on a very large scale of topics, from fetishizing fat women’s bodies to briefly on contrasting forms of fetishization. But, the big question that I want to leave with you, is what can be done to stop the objectifying? The fetishizing? The stereotyping? These are such large issues that it seems impossible to even think of tackling them. Will people ever learn that this is wrong? That it is not right to be even doing that to women, and taking away their identities? Therefore, please do let me know what you guys, the audience, think about this overwhelming situation.

 

Understanding Fat in America

In the American culture, we often view fatness as undesirable or unattractive and idealize thinness. Kathleen LeBesco, in Revolting Bodies, made her argument about fat and beauty and how she wants to redefine the way we view fatness in Western societies. In Chapter One she discussed how body fat has been portrayed in art in the past. Being in an art history class, I have seen so many examples of what LeBesco is trying to say. In art, the women who are being depicted as wealthy and beautiful are shown having full, curvy bodies. She uses the example of the “Venus of Willendorf”, one of the oldest pieces of art showing the female body. The Venus has a rather exaggerated bosom and hips; she is thought to display fertility. I included a picture directly below.

 In those times being fat was a sign that you could afford to eat and did not have to labor, as well as showing that a woman was fertile. Other cultures and other time periods had much different opinions about fat than Americans do now. LeBesco talked about how the Annang women of Nigeria still go through a fattening period before they are married. In their culture “women of substance” are desired and viewed as being wealthy. Also, in Pacific societies, fat is almost a necessity. Having fat provided protection against the cold and because of the irregular food supply in the area, body fat could keep you alive. I think it is very interesting how in our modern culture being fat can often be a sign of a lower socioeconomic class rather than show wealth.

                In a recent study it was discovered that eating healthy foods costs on average $1.50 more per day which adds up to over $500 a year. It is easy to skip the health store and instead get all the fast food you want for much less money and in half the time. It is much easy to get fat by eating cheap, filling food than eating healthy food that may not fill you up as long. The director of the center for public health nutrition at the University of Washington, Adam Drewnowski, found in his study that “a 2,000-calorie diet would cost just $3.52 a day if it consisted of junk food, compared with $36.32 a day for a diet of low-energy dense foods”. These numbers are shocking to me. What this makes me think is that the body type that depicts wealth in a certain area is the body type that is more desirable.

                

What is absurd to me is that some people do not recognize the blatant fact that everyone has a different body type. We are not all destined to be the same size as one another which can be seen in the fact that there are three major body types: ectomorph, endomorph, and mesomorph. Depictions of these three body types are shown in the image above. People who have the endomorphic body type are naturally larger for a number of reasons. They have larger bones and slower metabolisms, making it much harder for them to lose weight. If every different body is naturally occurring how can we say one is better than the others? With society constructing the idea of what body type is the most sought after, our nation needs to be more educated about bodies in general.

                When I saw that our nation’s connotation of fat is socially constructed, I realized there has to be a way to change it. It pains me how often I hear people making derogatory comments about others based on the shape of their bodies. Still, every time I hear one of those comments, I make a point to question the person who said it and ask why that body type offends them so much. When it comes down to it, most people do not know why they view fat as a flaw. It is just so ingrained in our culture to see fat as a bad thing that we hardly even question why it is that way. The United States has the second highest rate of obesity in the world, but if you flipped through an American magazine you would never know that. When researching opinionated articles about fat I found something that literally made me gasp. The article, by Christopher Freind, is called “Solve America’s Obesity Problem with Shame”, which you can read here if you are not already completely turned off by the title. The article is a very drastic suggestion of how we can help end obesity, but makes the point that everyone should have the desire to be skinny. It does not account for people who are plumper and perfectly healthy, but it shames them equally. I found another article that shows examples of fat shaming ads that I cannot believe are real (link here). The most shocking part about this article could possibly have been the comments; one saying how much she loved the ads and how funny she thought they were. With all this being said, I can somewhat see where Freind is coming from. I do not believe we should in any way idealize thinness over being plump or curvy, but there is a point where being fat can become very harmful or even detrimental to one’s health. I think we have to keep this in mind when we attempt to make fat more acceptable in our nation. We cannot simply say it is good to be morbidly obese, because it is just not the truth. However, we should be saying it is equally acceptable to be plump or fat as it to be thin.

Celebrating Fatness

Revolting Bodies By Kathleen LeBesco is ambitious; LeBasco endeavors to cram very complex problems into very short chapters. What’s more within these short chapters she has provoking and involved questions and observations. One idea that stuck with me was in chapter one, when she is discussing why it was that societies idolized fatness in the past. Ultimately the conclusion LeBesco reaches is that fat bodies were idolized because they were hard to attain. She says, “… values aligned with different body sizes largely depend on what is difficult to attain in a given sociocultural and historical context” (LeBesco 21-22). The obvious question I asked myself was why? Today it is easy enough to say that we want bodies that are difficult to obtain because the culture of getting these bodies encouraged consumerism. There are so many different products one can buy to get thinner and fitter. Not only are there products to make yourself thinner but there are also products to make yourself appear thinner. There is an industry that directly benefits from us feeling bad about our bodies and trying to change them. So of course the body that is the hardest to attain is the one that we are socialized to want. But what about in the past?

I suppose there has always been some form of consumerism but it was less prevalent in the time of ancient Greece. The answer to this, I think, is that what is hardest to obtain is scarce, and because it is scarce it is special. It is also worth noting that in both today and in the past the people who most often possess this type of body are wealthy, and are central figures in society because of their wealth. LeBesco’s observation also asserts that we have always wanted what we can’t have. I think this is an important observation because it asserts that for a large part of human history we have been taught to work towards and idolize an image of ourselves that is very hard to obtain. Meaning that it is perhaps time we tired to fight back against this trend. It is about time we tried to change the societal pressure to look like a certain minority of people. But how do we do this? I think one way is by breaking down the stigma that fatness has around it. Mainly the connotations that fat people are unhappy, unhealthy, gluttonous, and bad people. We fight back against this connotation by using representation, and showing fat people who are happy, healthy, and unashamed of their fatness.

In chapter three LeBesco talks a lot about the difference between embracing and celebrating fatness and just admitting that the fat is there. She points out that fat people are often only seen in a positive light if they admit that their fatness is a problem and something they are ashamed of. Only a fat person who dislikes that they’re fat is seen as moral. Fat people who are happy, not in spite of, but because of their fat are seen as incorrect and immoral. On page 47 LeBesco says “Fat moves beyond something we must learn to cope with to something we delight in” she is directly referring to Stinson’s Belly Songs: in Celebration of Fat Women in this section, but this quote is applicable to how we can change the stigma of being fat. Like I said earlier I believe one way we can do this is by showing fat women who celebrate their fatness. But this is something so rarely represented in mainstream media so we must search for it other places.

For me personally my search has mostly been limited to blogs, specifically blogs on the blogging site Tumblr. There are many different body-positivity blogs on Tumblr where users can submit photos of themselves to the blog. I’ll link to a blog that Ifollow on the tumblr that overall celebrates and embraces fatness. [Disclaimer: this blog contains a lot of nudity and some swear words in different descriptions of photos]. 

From body-posi.tumblr.com

What I think is important about this blog is not just that is shows fat bodies, and not just that is shows fat people, but that they are put on display by their own choice. What’s more that they are so unique and different and diverse. There are bodies of different genders, sizes, races; the photos range from high quality to low quality and from fashion level magazine composition to mirror selfies. Another really important part of this blog is not just the diversity but also the happiness and contentment that most of the photos show either through the photo itself or the accompanying description.

Having representation opens up the possibility of identification, or seeing someone and feeling less alone because they look like you. It helps change your mindset when you see someone who looks like you celebrating their body. The first step to changing our views on bodies is to allow ourselves to see different types of bodies, and also to separate our connotations of what kind of people have what kinds of body. We should allow people to celebrate their bodies regardless of their size; and we can start doing this by celebrating our own bodies.