By now you may have seen the pointed on-air response that Jennifer Livingston, a news anchor for WKTB in La Crosse Wisconsin, gave to a viewer who suggested that someone as fat as she is should not really be on TV, lest young girls get the idea that it’s ok to be fat.
Here’s the video. Some thoughts on it below.
Let’s go back, for a moment, to what the guy said in his email. (You can find a transcript of the whole video here.)
Hi Jennifer,
It’s unusual that I see your morning show, but I did so for a very short time today. I was surprised indeed to witness that your physical condition hasn’t improved for many years. Surely you don’t consider yourself a suitable example for this community’s young people, girls in particular. Obesity is one of the worst choices a person can make and one of the most dangerous habits to maintain. I leave you this note hoping that you’ll reconsider your responsibility as a local public personality to present and promote a healthy lifestyle.
While couched as helpful advice from a concerned citizen, the email basically suggests that Jennifer is, in essence, committing a crime against young girls by being fat in public. While Livingston, as a TV anchor, presumably “assaults” thousands of young girls by appearing on TV fat, the letter writer’s logic would presumably apply to every fat woman who posts pictures of herself online, appears in a play, or even just goes outside where others can see her.
Indeed, one woman I know has gotten similar, er, complaints, from people who’ve attacked her for “celebrating obesity” by posting pictures of herself on her blog looking something other than miserable and ashamed of her body.
In addition to the fact that Livingston’s weight is none of this guy’s fucking business, it should also be noted that the he’s simply incorrect in assuming that a person’s weight has much to do with the healthiness of their lifestyle. There are plenty of skinny people living less than healthy lives, including many in the public eye. (Has he ever heard of eating disorders? Or Keith Richard?) And fatness in itself is not a sign of an unhealthy lifestyle, nor does it generally add to health risks. Indeed, as author and fat blogger Kate Harding has noted:
Weight itself is not a health problem, except in the most extreme cases (i.e., being underweight or so fat you’re immobilized). In fact, fat people live longer than thin people and are more likely to survive cardiac events … obesity research is turning up surprising information all the time — much of which goes ignored by the media … Just because you’ve heard over and over and over that fat! kills! doesn’t mean it’s true. It just means that people in this culture really love saying it.
What you eat makes a difference to your health – not how much, or how many of the calories go directly to your waistline.
Meanwhile even those who actually want to lose a lot of weight don’t have many practical options besides gastric surgery, which carries its own health risks. Diets tend to be a mixture of quackery and false hope. They can be unhealthy and even dangerous – and the overwhelming majority of dieters eventually gain back what they lose. For most people, short of gastric surgery, the only way to lose a lot of weight and keep it off is to remain on a diet forever.
But the issue here isn’t really health. It’s body policing. As Livingston herself noted, fat people know that they’re fat. They don’t need it pointed out to them, even if the person pointing it out convinces themselves that they’re doing it for the fat person’s good. And frankly, most of those pointing it out don’t have good intentions. (It’s no coincidence that the favorite insult of the MRAs and other misogynists who hate this blog is to call me fat; I expect some will use this post an excuse for another round of fat-shaming.)
As Livingston noted in her reply to the letter-writer:
The truth is, I am overweight. You could call me fat and yes, even obese, on a doctor’s chart. But to the person who wrote me that letter, do you think I don’t know that? That your cruel words are pointing out something that I don’t see? You don’t know me. You are not a friend of mine. You are not a part of my family and you have admitted that you don’t watch this show so you know nothing about me but what you see on the outside and I am much more than a number on a scale.
And here is where I want all of us to learn something from this. If you didn’t already know, October is National Anti-Bullying Month, and this is a problem that is growing every day in our schools and on the internet. It is a major issue in the lives of young people today and as the mother of three young girls it scares me to death. Now I am a grown women and luckily for me I have a very thick skin, literally, as that email pointed out, and otherwise. And that man’s words mean nothing to me. But what really angers me is there are children who don’t know better. Who get emails, as critical as the one I received or in many cases even worse, each and every day. The internet has become a weapon. Our schools have become a battleground. And this behaviour is learned. It is passed down from people like the man who wrote me that email.
Since Livingston’s video went viral, the letter writer has come forward to double-down on his fat-shaming, saying in a statement that he hopes “she will finally take advantage of a rare and golden opportunity to influence the health and psychological well-being of Coulee Region by transforming herself for all of her viewers to see over the next year.”
I’m not quite sure why the letter writer thinks it’s Livingston’s job to “transform … herself” to meet his desired specifications. But I doubt there’s any point to arguing that with him unless he can first transform himself into something other than the real-world version of an internet “concern troll.”
After reading all this, I thought I’d take a look at MGTOWforums.com – where the regulars are not exactly shy about expressing their opinions about the appearance of women — to see if the regulars had responded with their customary compassion and respect. By which I mean self-righteousness and fat jokes. I was not disappointed.
Bubbagumpshrimp, while himself fat, decided it was perfectly fair to attack the weight of a fat women who – gasp! – puts herself on TV.
The writer stated the truth without resorting to being mean about it. He didn’t call her fat or anything mean. He just referred to her as what she obviously is…obese. This coming from someone that’s a good sized guy. You can’t go into a career that has you on camera, be her size, and be shocked when people call you on it. You VOLUNTARILY put yourself out there to be judged. If you don’t want to be picked apart on your weight, go be an IT person or something.
The problem in this country is that obese people are viewed as victims of a medical condition. The reality of it is that they are in a self-induced state. They have no one to blame but themselves. Putting someone like that out there to be a whiner when it’s obvious that she partakes in the all you can eat buffet line makes her exactly what the writer said…not a good role model for children.
Stewie displayed his rapier wit:
You shouldn’t be reporting on climate changes when you are so fat you are causing them.
Simple conflict of interest.
I don’t think she should be allowed to talk about earth quakes or talk shit about the gravitational pull of the moon either.
You know, because she’s FAT. (The climate and weather references are there because the MGTOWforum regulars seem to think she’s a weather person.)
DruidV, meanwhile, waxed indignant that a woman who doesn’t appeal to his boner is even allowed on TV:
This kind of shit is exactly why I killed my TV years ago.
Look, bitch, you’re FAT!
Listen, bitch, it’s perfectly a okay for anyone to tell you so publicly or otherwise. You don’t have the right to not be offended.
Let me say it again, bitch, YOU ARE FAT! and also very ugly, so I guess what you really are is FUGLY, bitch!
No, it’s NOT to be celebrated either, you nasty slob! It’s disgusting and pathetic. You should at least be ashamed of yourself, since laying off the buffet and hitting the gym is apparently out of the question, but then you are also female, which means you can’t even shut up about yourself long enough to see what a laughing stock you are. Three strikes and you are out, Bertha.
That said, couldn’t we pony up some $$$ to get this hideous broad (pun intended) replaced by a hot bikini blonde weather slut? It’s bad enough to have to watch our shitty weather play out, but do we really have to look at an indignant fat pig telling us how great and special she and her husband thinks she is at the same time?
Blah!
Blah indeed — because the letter writer’s missive to Livingston was really only a more politely worded, passive-aggressive version of this sort of hateful shit.
Vitamin D seems to be working with a very flexible definition of “the same as.”
Tell Katz I said I was using her words- try ‘as bad as’- it fits better.
@Vitamin D – Are you saying that sexual attraction/fetishes aren’t hard wired? Or that no one could possibly have a fetish as broad as an entire race of people? Or something else?
I’ve been trying to follow this convo and the disagreement seems to be coming from differing premises, not poor logic after the premises.
Or do you accept that some people may have an unchangeable fetish as broad as an entire race, but they should keep it to themselves in public because stating their preference unashamedly is hurtful to the people who are excluded by it?
@ Kim- fetishes are special, and I am operating on the assumption we aren’t talking about a special beige people fetish, or anti-beige people fetish as it were. Like can you you say foot fetishes are a result of mass media influence? Only in an extremely questionable way. The same is not true for the sexualization of young white women to the exclusion of minorities.
Saying ‘I am not attracted to black people’ is the same as saying ‘Black people are unattractive’
No, it’s not.
For the purposes of determining racist attitudes- yes, it is.
ttf’s words, actually.
Responding to your comment, but seriously, when I said it would be better represented as ‘as bad as’ are you going to get all huffy over phrasing? That will do for the purposed of this little chat, go with it. Oh wait, I mean if you hear from Katz, tell her the above.
I feel like we’re talking past each other. Is any of the following controversial here?
A. No one should ever be forced or pressured to have sex with someone against their will.
B. Most of us live in a world that is still pretty fucking racist, and those of us who oppose racism should be willing to take reasonable steps to avoid supporting racism. “Reasonable” does not equal pity fucking people you are not attracted to, because that would be a shitty thing to do.
C. It is probably a good idea to not express publicly sentiments that reinforce prevailing racist ideas that people of color are less attractive, because (a) your personal preferences are not relevant to anyone who isn’t interested in sleeping with you, and (b) your personal preferences may be hurtful to people who get that enough from the media, etc.
D. Repeat A.
Sure it’s not the same. But why would you say that in front of people who aren’t interested in who you are attracted to, in front of an online audience that probably includes black people who hear from multiple sources daily how inferior/unattractive/angry/etc. they are? What do you have to gain from sharing that? What do we all have to lose? Why risk causing pain?
@ Cloudiah- um, yeah, kind of exactly. cheers!
I’m on board with everything Cloudiah said.
Also, CassandraSays said:
And I’d like to say the same – sorry if I was being aggressive or policing or in any way asshole-ish. I think we probably actually mostly agree on this issue, but were coming at it from different directions.
Cloudiah: are you saying that being attracted or not attracted to whatever race is fine, but saying so (depending, perhaps, on the context) may be wrong or hurtful?
If so, a) sure, I agree with everything you said, and b) that’s very different from what ttf and Vitamin D were arguing, since they both said (or at least heavily implied and refused to disagree with) that not being attracted to a certain race automatically made you racist, whether you say so or not. Ttf was quite explicit that you’re either a racist who’s broadcasting your racism, or a racist who shuts up about it.
And c) this whole conversation is very odd since nobody ever did say they weren’t attracted to anyone of a certain race.
I also agree with everything Cloudiah said. Just want to add that no one in the thread said anywhere “I’m not attracted to black people” (or any other ethnicity). The boner reports have been kept to a minimum here, people have been speaking hypothetically about whether it’s okay to have certain preferences.
So, and this is a serious question – is the ONLY real area of disagreement here whether it’s okay or wrong to have a hypothetical discussion on colour preferences? Or is there ALSO disagreement on whether a person who doesn’t sexually fancy blacks/fat/disabled/whatever ought to try to change zir sexual preferences?
@ Katz- Ok, I signed up as vitamin d the first time, user name issues, renamed myself time traveling fool, it’s the same avatar, comeawn. Secondly, what cloudiah is saying is exactly the same as what I am saying, only nicer. Likely, she is a better human being than I am. Awesome. But being a better person means that sometimes you don’t call racists on their racist shit because it doesn’t change their behavior and it gets them all hostile. Personally, I’ve always found talking to people gently about their prejudices just means they like you more while they ignore you. Me, I like you to remember when I called you on it.
As to the serious question, I don’t give a shit about their sexual preferences, I do give a shit about their racism. And yes, they ought to make an effort to drop that. If, as a result, they become attracted to minorities, um, fine? I’m sure minorities everywhere will rejoice? But certainly not the point.
Okay, at this point I may have lost track, but I feel like early in this whole conversation pretty much everyone agreed that randomly announcing your sexual preferences to the world is generally tacky, regardless of what those preferences are. I absolutely agree with that – if people are having a conversation about anything other than what you find attractive, stopping by to share what you find attractive seems vaguely annoying at best, and downright rude at worst. Was anyone actually arguing otherwise and I missed it? (Honest question, to be clear – I’m tired and this argument got ridiculous enough that I don’t especially want to go back and poke through it.)
That said, once a conversation IS on the topic of what various people find attractive, I cannot see sharing what particular tastes one might have as being inherently offensive or oppressive to anyone, unless it is done in a specifically offensive or oppressive way. Simply saying, “Personally, I think blonde hair is sexy!” or “I’ve never really gone for particularly skinny women, myself – I like curvy ladies!” or “I really like it when a guy is taller than I am!” is not, or should not be, a problem in that context. (Again, “in that context” is key – there is a pretty obvious difference between my friend saying, “Heh, I have another crush on a tall skinny guy with glasses – I do seem to have a type, don’t I?” to me when discussing her latest flame, as she did the other day, and someone wandering into an unrelated space to announce, “Hey, ladies, I just want you to know that I like big boobies!”) Now, the same preferences could absolutely be expressed in massively uncool ways, but I feel like that’s a problem with being a douchebag about one’s preferences, not with having or expressing them in the first place. Is that fair?
Nah, dude, announcing your sexual preferences when they come from a blatantly racist an obviously hurtful place is, um, ‘tacky’ ( if by tacky you mean perpetuating racist stereotypes). And no, it isn’t fair to express harmful shit. And yes, alienating a minority when it comes to sexual preferences is in a different category of harm when it comes to tall people, or people with glasses- find me a history book about the war against tall people and the systemic oppression of the beglassed and maybe we can talk.
That’s nice, but I’m not sure why you think I’d have any interest in talking to you at this point, given that you explicitly stated that you weren’t bothering to read what I’d written and then proceeded to make up lies about what I had said. If you’d care to apologize for that and try addressing my actual arguments, that’d be great, but in the meantime, I’m really not interested in playing along with your little games.
Addressing someone who explicitly identified as female just a few comments back as “dude” is SUPER classy, by the way.
Well, dude, what can I say, I am wicked classy. Enjoy your pout.
katz, I’m not willing to say that not being attracted to whatever race is fine, because if it is based on racist sensibilities that isn’t fine — that doesn’t in any way negate the proposition that people shouldn’t have sex with people they aren’t attracted to, but people who are opposed to racism shouldn’t be complacent about internalized racism.
@Vitamin D, Thanks for the condescension, I guess? If you think my goal is to be liked here, well I’m not going to change your mind but that’s pretty far off from my actual motivation.
My problem with what TTF/Vitamin D was that zie left out this:
Because that is pretty important distinction if we are discussing individual preference. Otherwise you are taking a personal preference for having intimate relations with (of any kind) and claiming that it means that person thinks anyone or all persons of a particular race, personality, hair colour, eye colour, left handedness…is unattractive period, full stop.
So, Cloudiah, you think that one is racist if one is not attracted to people of a certain race?
@ elizabeth- that’s not the distinction I make- I finish the sentence as : ‘I am not attracted to minority x.’ Or ‘Minority x is not attractive.’ These two separate statements are equally offensive in nature.