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.
Ozy, at least you sparked a discussion, which is not a bad thing at all.
Good night, everyone!
Cloudiah, I would make a big distinction between opinions, beliefs, feelings, and such, which are things people can consciously choose and change (feelings are a bit squishier, but usually when you change your opinions, your feelings follow), and sexual attraction, which is not something you can just choose. It just feels wrong (to me) to suggest that someone is racist for something that they may be unable to change, may greatly wish to change, and may run counter to everything they believe.
You can disagree. I certainly appreciate that you’re leaving room for that to be allowable. And this may all be hypothetical! Maybe there is no one who is attracted to absolutely no one of a specific race (I’m assuming we’re discounting cases like “I’m only attracted to my husband”). Maybe–very likely–the only people who aren’t attracted to anyone of a specific race are racist in much more obvious ways, making the whole thing moot.
Suzzallo is awesome. You’ve got to love a library named after the guy who was fired for blowing taxpayer money on an enormous, cathedral-like library. It just feels like Henry Suzzallo’s mummy should be in a sarcophagus in the basement, sealed up in a room full of first editions and a dozen mummified reshelving clerks to serve him in the afterlife.
Yeah, the distinction I made between quietly having no boners for minority groups and announcing your lack of boners on a public forum- still stands. Again- deal with your racism as you can personally and privately, don’t try and normalize it, and don’t try and pretend it is written in the fucking stars- people have gotten over a whole lot more challenging things than racism. And, for the love of fuck, when you get called on it stop playing the semantics game and trying to figure out what hyper-literal thing the person who said you were being racist really meant and how that makes them wrong- just stop being a racist. Christ.
THEY ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO TELL YOU THAT UNTIL YOU ARE A SENIOR
@ ozzy- I made the point earlier our aesthetic preferences are heavily influenced by ideology. Pretty much exactly the same way we are taught to fear black men.
There was some really good hot sauce at Pike Place Market, but it was ten dollars a bottle, so I didn’t buy it because I’m racist against expensive sauce.
@timetravelling vitamins
Okay, so we agree then? Because no, it’s not okay to be racist. I said like WAAAAY earlier that everyone should try to get over prejudices, and this MIGHT incidentally affect their boners. I just said that you can’t directly affect your boner by the power of will, and I thought you were arguing against that.
Seems now like you were never disagreeing with me to start with, so, uhm, good?
@ Dvarg- Sounds good to me! I hate it when we fight.
I continue to agree with everything Cloudiah said.
Except that whole part of allowable racism. That’s weird. It’s not like you should go screw minorities because you think you will appear less racist- that doesn’t make you less racist at all. In fact, boning people or not isn’t at all the point. The point is people saying any racist attitude ought to be accepted. That is so clearly not the case.
“Allowable” was a poor word choice. More like “possibly unchangeable” in relation to sexual attraction, which should be contrasted with publicly held racist beliefs/attitudes/actions which are definitely changeable.
Exactly. Change what you can change, but when it comes to your boner’s behaviour you’re probably not able to control it by will.
@ Cloudiah- I am using a third person ‘you’, , I don’t mean you, Cloudiah, internet poster. I’m not sure racist beliefs in relation to attraction are significantly different than any other racist beliefs. What I do know is the only people that it serves to pretend they are acceptable are the people who hold those beliefs. What we really should be asking is who is benefiting and who is hurting from a conversation that includes acceptance of certain racist attitudes. Certainly not minorities- all those conversations do is perpetuate and apologize for their systemic ideological alienation. Pretty much what people want is to hear that this racist attitude is ok, that it doesn’t matter that it hurts other people, and there should be no limit on what people feel morally justified in expressing in public. Well, people really ought to be less concerned about whether or not they should feel guilty about their racist attitudes and more concerned about perpetuating their racist attitude by pretending it’s alright because they can’t be helped. And far more concerned about how oppressed groups feel when they read people trying to be racist apologists. At the very least there is some serious ‘othering’ going on here, and what is particularly frustrating is everyone is conscious of it and still trying to convince themselves it’s ok. Well that’s not your call to make- if you’re feeling particularly racist and you cannot stop feeling racist no matter how hard you try then, by all means, you can say absolutely nothing at all. Just quietly wait until the urge to say the racist thing goes away, and you have done your part in not participating in perpetuating racism.
Adding: That should be quiet boners above. (And they’re not my boners, since as far as I can tell, my own boner isn’t racist. Do I get a cookie now? ;-))
This is a fairly odd claim. We know that sexual preferences, perhaps beyond very basic “I like cock” sort of things, aren’t somehow innate or unchangeable. Men did not en masse involuntarily begin to be disgusted by pubic hair sometime around 1987.
If you’re like “Well, I don’t like sexually; I can’t help that, it’s just my boner which I have no control over” you’re passing off responsibility for your internalized $ism to your cock/clit. You could lay back and roll with it. You could also seek out counteracting media, images and stories of $marginalized group being portrayed as beautiful or sexy. Maybe you change your mind, maybe you don’t, but the seeking out with an open mind is an act of will.
My sense of this converation is not that people want to hear that their racist attitude is okay, but:
– people don’t have a lot of control over their sexual attractions.
– people shouldn’t be shamed for their sexual attractions.
– people shouldn’t feel forced to have sex with people they’re not attracted to.
– sexual attractions are undoubtedly informed by the culture we grow up in.
– north american culture is very racist.
In one of Malcolm Gladwell’s books, he talks about people’s responses on the Implicit Association Test (which is apparently controversial, and I’m totally open to being corrected about this). He reported that, for one student who took the test every day just to build a baseline, he found that his results (bias for whites) didn’t change, until one day, they did. What happened on that day was that, watching the olympics, the student was unthinkingly exposed to a lot of black people doing awesome things.
This was different from his day-to-day experience of his racist culture in which he was unthinkingly exposed to a lot of news about black people being criminals and being chairman of the national republican party.
So the takeaway I got from all of that is: we can’t necessarily change our unconscious preferences, but we can change our conscious ones, so that we create more positive exposure for minorities, and thus change our culture.
Or, you know, what Nepenthe said.
Look, I’m not saying your sexual preferences are because GENETICS. Obviously lots of stuff is because SOCIETY. I would even guess that most odd preferences still comes from environmental influences somehow, even if it’s less obvious with odd preferences than with mainstream ones (because, like, where would they otherwise come from? I don’t believe there’s such a thing as a foot fetish gene for instance).
And I’ve been saying ALL ALONG “work on your prejudices, and this may in turn affect your boner”, so we’re not disagreeing really. It’s just that the key word is “may”. There’s no direct control over boners, or other feelings for that matter, like there is over words and actions (or even thoughts for that matter – it’s easier to decide not to think certain things than not feel certain things).
But yeah, I also agree with vitamin D that you shouldn’t sit on the internet giving boner reports, but once again, that’s WRITING, something you have direct control over.
I concur.
@Unimaginative: Yes to everything.
OK, I think we’re pretty much all on the same page here; I did suggest presenting people with counteracting media like 5 pages ago. There’s just a big difference between saying that sexual preferences are not innate and unchangeable and expecting people to just change their preferences with the flip of a switch, which was the implication underlying the original “rethink your preferences” idea and Vitamin Fool’s whole “if you won’t stop being racist…” rant.
@ Katz- Oh, I never said it would be easy. I said you should do it anyway. Or, if you absolutely can’t, stop talking about your racist preferences.
Vitamin – are you thinking of the racism as applying to anyone of any race preferring people of their own race, sexually? Or are you thinking of whatever-the-majority-is of any given country not being interested in whatever-the-minorities-are in that country? I’m not having a go, or wanting this to turn into an argument again, I’m just wondering if you’re framing this in a specifically US context.
I’m also curious as to why we should be thinking of people in general as potential sex partners or not. It kind of generalises, doesn’t it? What about those people who don’t think of anyone – their own race or others – sexually? They could still find people of any race beautiful, attractive, interesting or whatever, but it’s not about sexual preferences at all.