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.
Oooh, I can answer that one! It’s all down to Scott McKenzie, George Harrison and my cousin Harold. Hippies, long hair and moustaches and colourful clothes, ah … I didn’t have a chance when I laid eyes on Mr Kitteh for the first time. 🙂
I developed a liking for men who wear eyeliner because…um…my mum really loved David Bowie and Marc Bolan?
I remain unconvinced that society in general gives much value to men who wear eyeliner, unless they are glam rock stars from the 70s (and not dead, unlike poor Bolan).
I love seeing makeup on men. Hardly ever do, though.
I see it often. It’s a nice perk of the job.
Fersure! 🙂
I used to see makeup on men when I was in the Goth scene (marginally, anyway) back in the 90s, but not being with the same group of friends now, I don’t. The only man in makeup I can bring to mind is a young bloke who lights up the street by dressing so well – leather and chains and shoulder-length crimson hair – who I pass on the way to work. He’s not remotely sexually attractive to me, it’s simply a pleasure to see someone presenting themselves so strikingly.
Yeah… unless your boner-meh about Black people is somehow going to contribute to political/economic disenfranchisement, or sentencing discrepancies, or the “war on drugs”, or discrimination outside of the ability to have sex with ozymandia – I wouldn’t worry too much about it
If you suddenly find yourself worrying that you can only be decent and extend rights to people that you consider sexually attractive, then you might have a problem. Otherwise, I wouldn’t don’t concern yourself. I seriously doubt any Black people are losing sleep over it.
Let me see if I can make one last go at presenting my thoughts in a convincing way.
If a woman is more likely to be scared by seeing a black man late at night than she would be by seeing a white man in the same situation, that speaks to a racial prejudice on her part. It does not suggest that she shouldn’t be scared period, because she might have good reason to be. Certainly anyone chastising her for being scared would be an asshole, especially given that the culture we live in both lambasts women for fearing strange men and chastises them for not fearing strange men enough.
But none of that changes the fact that she is exhibiting a racial bias which likely reflects received racist attitudes, and I don’t think it’s out of line to suggest she take a long look at why that is. This does not mean she needs to stop being afraid of black men, or of all men, or whatever – that’s all very much context dependent.
And I don’t really see why the case with sexual attraction wouldn’t be analogous. I think CassandraSays is right that society polices women’s sexuality and sexual choices, and that’s fucking terrible. I think a lot of men will try to make women feel guilty for not being attracted to them, and that’s fucking terrible. But that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s not worthwhile to examine your preferences, even though that might not change any of the attractions you currently feel, because you can be totally justified in not feeling an attraction to a POC/person who is fat/person with a disability/whatever and still be guilty of a prejudice which makes you more likely to view people belonging to that group as not beautiful.
Hopefully that made sense. At any rate, I do think you’re right that I wasn’t cognizant enough of the context in which this debate was taking place, and I’ll try to be more prudent about when and how I advance this line of thinking in the future.
Yeah, there’s a bit of an implication of “…and then feel bad about them!”
I guess. You could also just get over yourself.
Seriously, I don’t mean to be flip but considering the historic oppression and continued effects of institutional racism that Black people have to deal with, not being considered sexually attractive by the handful of people of who have a problem reconciling their own progressive principles with their lack of attraction of to black people is, well, barley a blip on the radar screen.
That sentence is long. I’ve had a lot of wine.
Also, maybe a little less “discussing” your attraction -or lack thereof- to Black people like you would a piece of art your considering hanging on your wall. That would be good. Also.
Gametime, why do you keep trying to make “doesn’t want to sleep with” and “is scared of for obviously racist reasons” the same thing? This is part of my issue with your position – you keep trying to draw parallels that I don’t think exist in most cases. The things you’re trying to draw parallels between are not analogous. Someone can find X group of people to be not to their sexual taste without being scared of them or hating them.
Now does society shape people’s patterns of attraction? Yes, obviously it does. But this thing you keep doing where you assume that “isn’t attracted to everyone” equals “is specifically not attracted to black people” equals “also probably flinches every time they pass a black dude in the street” is really not cool. You’re conflating stuff that isn’t necessarily connected at all, and I’m not seeing why you keep insisting on this rather odd framing.
There’s also the fact that honestly, if someone is afraid of all black men, she SHOULD stop that, or at least try to, because that’s totally unreasonable. Not being attracted to a group of people is not inherently unreasonable, or automatically in the same category of thing as being so racist that you’re scared to death of a particular group of people and freak out when you see them. The only way that argument makes sense is if you assume that without societally induced prejudice everyone would be attracted to everyone, and that’s just silly.
I mean yes, sometimes people can not be attracted to Group X for reasons of prejudice, but sometimes people can just not be attracted to Group X because they’re really fixated on Type Y and there’s not much overlap. For example, I dislike body hair, which does tend to tie into ethnicity to some extent, but the dislike isn’t for Ethnicity Where People Are Often Kinda Hairy, it’s for the hairiness in and of itself.
Also, and this is a pretty fundamental point here, PEOPLE SHOULD NOT HAVE TO JUSTIFY WHO THEY ARE AND ARE NOT ATTRACTED TO. That’s a horrible, very bad, not good idea, and it’s one that we call MRAs and PUAs out on all the time.
There’s also the fact that it’s OK not to find everyone beautiful. Beautiful is a subjective thing – does anyone really find everyone they see beautiful? That’s not a reasonable expectation to have, that everyone find everyone else beautiful.
Basically this whole way of looking at how people relate to each other in a sexual way seems really weird and unreasonable to me.
What the hell would this mean in the context of someone else just ordered you to rethink your sexual preferences, and you did, and they didn’t end up any different?
Presuming that someone did, in fact, order you to “rethink your sexual preferences” and you were, for some reason,compelled to obey that order and -after examining your sexual preferences- discovered that you really just aren’t generally attracted to black/asian/latino/fat/genderqueer/disabled/butch/femme/whatever people for what ever reason(s)…
Well, you could, then, just get over yourself. Because your personal sexual preferences don’t really matter. That’s why they’re personal. Unless and until some member of the demographic which you find, generally, unattractive sexually is beating down your door demanding to date you, then the whole thing is really a non-issue.
Okay, if you’ve been reading what I’m writing and honestly came away with EVERYONE MUST LOVE EVERYONE as my thesis, there’s been a fundamental breakdown in communication at one end or the other.
@Gametime
Well, this conversation started with dude saying that his ideal is Christina Hendricks, right? I’m not getting why that prompted “examine your preferences” in the first place, since “what does this have to do with the OP?” seems like the main issue. But in terms of the ongoing discussion, you are coming across as if you’re operating from the assumption that if anyone has preferences that in any way reflect cultural norms it must be because they haven’t done enough self-examination, and we know this because if they had done that self-examination they wouldn’t have those preferences. It’s coming across as a sealed logical loop where preference x automatically equals hasn’t examined because if they had there’s no reason why they wouldn’t find (whatever physical characteristic we’re talking about) attractive. Which sure, that’s a possibility, but it’s an odd thing to assume, and as I keep pointing out for a lot of women it’s something that’s often used in a coercive way.
Klezmer is something I can get behind. Or Eastern European music in general.
http://youtu.be/HSOBbgQ3Kyc
You do know that repeating yourself doesn’t clarify anything, right?
I’m sorry if I’m coming across as super hostile here, btw. This whole conversation is hitting memories of attempted manipulation via guilt in the past for me (there was this one guy who I played D&D with when I was 9 or 10 and he was 13 or 14 who kept perving on me and trying to argue away my “no, really, no thanks, and also do you remember that I’m in elementary school?” as my being prejudiced against him because he was fat and I keep thinking of those conversations – oppressions intersect, you know?), and I think that the idea that nobody should ever have to feel like they need to justify not being interested in someone else for any reason tends to trump pretty much everything else in sexual situations. Maybe I’d feel differently about this if I hadn’t had “see you’re just being prejudiced and that’s not fair” actively used against me.
Also, arguments that use circular logic, I hate them.
I most certainly see this in discussions of A Song of Ice and Fire(SPOILER ALERT):
When Sansa is forced into a marriage with Tyrion, fan discussions often say something along the lines of, “Well, if she were older and more mature, she could see the good in him.” Not a fair critique in my mind. Especially since, in the books, he’s a lot uglier than Peter Dinklage.
Oh crap, wine and blockquotes don’t really mix. The super-indented statement is me, the less-indented statement is Nobinayamu.
I don’t hold it against woman for not meeting my attractiveness standards, so I don’t need to be lectured about that. I mean, basically any man that I meet, I wouldn’t wanna “hit that”, but I don’t hate them for it, so why would it be any different with women?
Now, this is going to sound like another ‘update from my boner’, but bear with me. While pale skin does indeed appeal to me on a physical level, there’s also the fact that the kind of woman who is proud to be pale is generally going to be different, personality-wise, from a woman who’s preoccupied with tanning. When a woman is naturally fairly dark of complexion, on account of ethnic background, that doesn’t really say anything about her personality. But when a woman looks like an Oompa-Loompa, I don’t merely find her unappealing sexually; I also think that this is the kind of person that I wouldn’t really enjoy having a conversation with.
@Sgt Grumbles
What? Is there any particular personality that goes with “has very tanned skin”? I mean, they’re more likely to be people who like the outdoors, the beach, and/or looking fashionable, but…?
I mean, it’s fine to not find tanned people as attractive (well, close enough; see the whole massive debate above), but assuming things about their personality on that basis?
He means he thinks all women who tan til they’re orange are Jersey Shore wannabes.
The idea of tanned people as high-maintenance and pale people as more natural/less shallow is pretty funny from the perspective of a goth. A lot of people spend a lot of time and effort trying to simulate Hendricks’ coloring.
(She’d make an awesome goth, actually. I don’t know why stylists always want to put her in pastels.)