"Should fat be revered, or is it flawed, and thus easily attainable?"

In chapter one, LeBesco writes a question not many people think about everyday, "is fat something to be revered, or is it flawed and thus easily attainable?" (26). I broke this down into terms that made the question sound easier, or in some ways stupid. Should fat be admired and respected, or is fat imperfect, damaged, and "flawed", because it is easy for almost anyone to get, or become, fat; and often times when something is too easy, it is not desired. This method of thinking applies to many instances in life, not just physical appearances but also in everyday situations, such as the prices of food. When you can get a lot of something very easily, or in some instances cheaper, because cheap is easier than expensive, it is not as valuable or desired. For example corn; it is easy to make corn, and it is mass produced so there is always so much of it, therefore it has a cheaper selling price. Not many people desire corn too often simply because they can have it all the time, and that's just how we as humans act. Another example relating to food is the price of meat. It is easy to produce mass amounts of chicken, therefore prices of cow, or more specifically steak, are higher than prices of chicken.
The metaphor I am implying about the question LeBesco addresses concerns the latter end of the question. Cheap food in most cases is bad for you, and losing weight for most women is not exactly easy, therefore the population jumps to thinking if a woman is overweight she should not be as desired, or they think fat in general is revolting, as the title suggests. As a regular human being I can say I am guilty of thinking this way at some times, however the book definitely pushes the readers mind further than just everyday thinking. The argument opposite of this which tries promoting health, or the desired "thinness", while at the same time discriminates against those who are overweight is the way of thinking that "nothing worth having comes easy". Although this could just be implying fitness does not come easy, I personally believe in many instances it means that being thin and fit does not come easily. I broke the quote down further to mean "being thin and fit does not come easy, so you have to work very hard to achieve such thinness and fitness". The hard work it takes to attain this ideal image is what makes the image so desirable.



http://healthybodyhappyspirit.blogspot.com/2014/03/three-weight-loss-facts-food-industry.html

I found this picture glancing through the web browser with "why being fat is easy" in the search box. It furthers to support the notion that most of the population desires to become thin, or wants to go on a diet. Not only does this quote enforce that idea, but also the thought that diet supplements support one way to attain the "desirable", thin body, and to lose weight, and diet supplements are not cheap. Since they are pricey, it makes it that much harder for people who desire to lose weight to lose weight, and especially hard for people who are poor and overweight to lose weight. It leads back to the question asked, "is fat 'revolting'", because many do not have to money and will power to stay in shape or as thin as many desire women to be in today's culture.

I found this question in the reading interesting, and also a paragraph after this question is asked LeBesco brings up another great observation. Heavy people are discriminated against so harshly today, one could compare it to the discrimination African Americans suffered in the US (and still suffer from). Society at large discriminates against over weight people, refers to their bodies as "revolting", and hates them in some cases for the reason being that they are over weight. It does not make sense when you take the time to think about how silly it sounds.. people don't think being over weight is acceptable in society. It sounds similar to not being liked because of your skin tone. (this metaphor might be somewhat extreme but I believe it help makes a point). LeBesco states in the book, "when fat people are not recognized as fully functioning persons, sexual persons, truly happy persons -- they do not aggregate among themselves. They not only do not belong to a 'normal' state or set of cultural conditions, they do not generally band together to mobilize in political action" (27). I thought this sentence alone was really deep and hard hitting. I never thought about over weight people as being a group alone discriminated against until now. Why don't they have a political organization? They seem to be oppressed, and definitely marginalized. Doing some searching online I found many websites that discriminated against heavy people from "How to Look Sexy if you are Big: 9 Steps", to "10 Frightening Ways We Discriminate Against Fat People". The first website, already assumes that "big" is not sexy, and the second website has some concerning statistics about how "thin" people have the upper hand  not only in the work force but also with legal situations, welfare, and boy scouts! The facts are quite shocking and relate nicely to how over weight people are separated into a group that is discriminated against, however they do not unite together to solve any of the public issues with discrimination against the obese.



http://www.themilitantbaker.com/2013/12/what-autocomplete-will-tell-you-about.html

I found this picture to be pretty relevant along with the link to that website. Here in the picture is a woman, who appears to be heavier than the "ideal" body image in today's culture/society. On her face is a Bing search I believe that says "fat people are..." and then the most used search categories, which under the search engine says, "gross; disgusting; annoying". The search engine is used to describe how our country and culture views fat people (gross, disgusting, etc.). There is also a quote on her chest that then reads, "It's not about the weight; lose the hate", which I think is an awesome quote. Everything is always centered around looks, and if they do not fit what people want they are not good enough. Society needs to stop "hatin", and start appreciating all the other wonderful things there are in the world ASIDE FROM BODY IMAGE. I liked this picture and how it correlates with my original question.."is fat revered, or flawed and thus easily attainable", because it screams fat is not either (or personally I do not think either of the options are good answers). Fat is just a thing, and society blew it out of proportion..imagine that. I want to know if you guys take a side on the question or if you believe it is neither revered or flawed as I do.