Saturday, January 9, 2010

Of Fat Surveillance and Profiling St. Nick

It's been a while since my last rant. Sometimes it seems as if Life is out to make sure that the things we want to do get back-burnered for the rest of eternity. Well, I'm not willing to wait that long. HA! [This is me, laughing in Life's face. Then hitting the deck. Fast.]

Some interesting things have been happening since I was last able to get in here. Apparently we have, yet another self-obsorbed well, nobody really, who has managed to get his name plastered all over the news for dissing Santa Claus about his weight. Ah, self-righteousness. It's amazing how, every year, some neurotic, health obsessed, asshat feels he or she MUST proclaim to the world how dangerous Santa Claus is. As if he were real (But he isn't. That's why he's so dangerous). As if he represents some kind of evil agenda (Ethnocentric, Non-PC, Theocentric, and commercially exploitive. That would be; Christmas), and as if they where the first ones to think of it. Why, we've even had a Surgeon General comment on the dangers of a fat St Nick. 'Cause, yah know, the Surgeon General really didn't have anything better to do that year.

This year, however, there seems to be a certain amount of push-back for this facile waste of time. A good thing considering the horrific levels to which fat-hate has gone in past years. It's enough to make a person wonder; How obsessed with Obesity Epipanic rhetoric / overcome with the need to admonish the 'wicked' does someone have to be to actively try and edit or delete an enduring icon of human good-will? An intervention may be required.

Wait a minute. Why are those people over there following us? Why do I feel like we're being watched? Perhaps because we are. I've been noticing a certain trend in and around the Fatosphere. A slogan becomes popular in the 'sphere, 'Diets don't work' for example, and suddenly a major diet concern is using it as a tag line. A ridiculous and offensive hypothesis like 'There weren't any fat people in concentration camps' gets called-out as the stupidity it actually is and the ridiculous argument seems to pop up a little less.
Well, now it seems there's suddenly a campaign against HAES or exercise practices that emphasizes health rather than virtually unsustainable weight loss. Obviously, since it's absolutely unacceptable impossible for fat people to be both fat and healthy. Some argument had to be found that would refute a non-weight loss philosophy. After all weight loss is the ONLY way to perfect health. Any hint to the contrary would be little more than heresy of the most blasphemous kind. 

So it would seem there are a few pertinent questions that might present themselves here; Is this Paris study a legitimate study that just happened to come along at precisely the right time after thirty years of observation? Or is it just another data dredge of some passingly related work who's numbers seem close enough to massage into a reasonable interpretation? I guess we'll just have to wait and see about that. However, if it does turn out to be the latter, then the next most obvious questions would be; Who could invest the most resources and has the greatest interest in having such a report published? Well, who might benefit most from keeping watchful eye on Fat Acceptance itself? Heard any good diet tag lines lately?
Muzak Therapy:
Wang Chung / Black-Blue-White

No comments:

Post a Comment