Should "Fatties" Get a Room? (Even on TV?) - Or Yes, I'm Also Jumping On The Blogger Bandwagon
ZeldaQueen: Not so many laughs today, folks. Just chiming in with my own two cents on the Maura Kelly controversy, which has been getting a lot of attention elsewhere. I'll be off of my soapbox and back to tackling Sues shortly
Projection Room Voices: Starting Media in 3...2...1...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Should "Fatties" Get a Room? (Even on TV?)
The other day, my editor asked me, "Do you really think people feel uncomfortable when they see overweight people making out on television?"
ZeldaQueen: Which really makes one wonder what leads to that conversation-opener
Because I can be kind of clueless - I'm not much of a TV person - I had no idea what she was talking about, so she steered me to this CNN article, about the CBS sitcom Mike & Molly. As CNN explains, "the show centers around a couple who meet at an Overeaters Anonymous group [and] has drawn complaints for its abundance of fat jokes [as well as] cries from some viewers who aren't comfortable watching intimacy between two plus-sized actors."
ZeldaQueen: Right. I'm going to admit right off of the bat that I have never seen Mike & Molly before either. For those of you who aren't familiar with the series, Wikipedia explains it thusly
"The series, set in Chicago, Illinois, follows two people, Mike Biggs, a police officer who wants to shed some pounds, and Molly Flynn, a fourth-grade teacher wanting to embrace her curves, who meet at an Overeaters Anonymous group and become an unlikely pair. However, they also have to deal with the comments, jokes, and criticism from Mike's fast-talking partner Carl McMillan, Molly's slim sister Victoria and mother Joyce, and Samuel, a Senegalese waiter at the officers' favorite restaurant."
My initial response was: Hmm, being overweight is one thing - those people are downright obese! And while I think our country's obsession with physical perfection is unhealthy, I also think it's at least equally crazy, albeit in the other direction, to be implicitly promoting obesity!
ZeldaQueen: Except that it sort of isn't, since we see that Mike wants to lose the weight
Yes, anorexia is sick, but at least some slim models are simply naturally skinny.
ZeldaQueen: And some overweight people are naturally overweight. There's a ton of genetic, medical, and psychological reasons why people are overweight, just like there's genetic, medical, and psychological reasons for people to be stick thin
No one who is as fat as Mike and Molly can be healthy. And obesity is costing our country far more in terms of all the related health problems we are paying for, by way of our insurance, than any other health problem, even cancer.
So anyway, yes, I think I'd be grossed out if I had to watch two characters with rolls and rolls of fat kissing each other ... because I'd be grossed out if I had to watch them doing anything. To be brutally honest, even in real life, I find it aesthetically displeasing to watch a very, very fat person simply walk across a room - just like I'd find it distressing if I saw a very drunk person stumbling across a bar or a heroine addict slumping in a chair.
ZeldaQueen: How lovely, that we're equating overweight people kissing or doing "anything" to engaging in alcoholism or heroine abuse. Because it's "aesthetically displeasing", right.
You know, there's probably folks who find watching anorexic-thin supermodels "aesthetically displeasing" and hate to watch then do "anything". So, should skinny people be kept out of public as well? Who's to say?
Now, don't go getting the wrong impression: I have a few friends who could be called plump.
ZeldaQueen: Yes, "plump". Nicely worded for the people you don't want to offend
I'm not some size-ist jerk.
ZeldaQueen: *raises eyebrows*
And I also know how tough it can be for truly heavy people to psych themselves up for the long process of slimming down. (For instance, the overweight maintenance guy at my gym has talked to me a little bit about how it seems worthless for him to even try working out, because he's been heavy for as long as he can remember.)
ZeldaQueen: Yet again, there's more to being overweight than it simply being too much food
But ... I think obesity is something that most people have a ton of control over. It's something they can change, if only they put their minds to it.
(I'm happy to give you some nutrition and fitness suggestions if you need them - but long story short, eat more fresh and unprocessed foods, read labels and avoid foods with any kind of processed sweetener in them whether it's cane sugar or high fructose corn syrup, increase the amount of fiber you're getting, get some kind of exercise for 30 minutes at least five times a week, and do everything you can to stand up more - even while using your computer - and walk more. I admit that there's plenty that makes slimming down tough, but YOU CAN DO IT! Trust me. It will take some time, but you'll also feel so good, physically and emotionally. A nutritionist or personal trainer will help - and if you can't afford one, visit your local YMCA for some advice.)
ZeldaQueen: Oh, how nice. I think you can get that advice from nine million other magazines and websites and wellness commercials.
Look, I'm not saying that eating healthily and exercising are bad, far from it. And I'm not saying that there aren't people in the world who really can benefit from it, especially in today's age of electronics and convenience. But to just tell an overweight person "You can do it! Just eat less! Only have fresh foods! Exercise more! Keep at it and get a personal trainer if you can!" is like telling an anorexic person "Hey, you look great! You don't need to lose any more weight! Just eat right and you'll be fine! Here, eat this sandwich!" It just doesn't work, because there's other factors.
Psychological, for example. There are people whose weight problems are a result of a lot of stress or self esteem issues. Relationship issues, family problems, trouble with finances or work, all of those things can cause people to overeat to deal with issues. In that case, the weight isn't the problem, the issues causing the stress are. The person's problem isn't that they're fat, it's that they're going to lose their house. Or were dumped by their boyfriend. Or are being pressured by Mom and Dad to get into a really prestigious college.
And there's the simple factor that a lot of people overlook - finances. Some people simply can't afford the resources needed to get themselves into top shape. Fresh food is expensive, especially depending on where a person lives. Fruits and vegetables are seasonal, so unless you live in California or Florida, you're going to be paying through the nose to get stuff in the fall and winter months. Now say that a person is dirt poor and has a very limited budget. Which are they more likely to go towards - the fresh produce which will leave them broke for a month, or the instant macaroni?
Same with the exercise. Not everyone has a YMCA or personal trainers available. One could argue that a friend or family member could help with the exercise regimes. Okay, that's fine (assuming one has a friend or family member available to help enforce a ridged work-out schedule). That does lead to a bit of hypocrisy though. Didn't Maura Kelly just say that she found anything fat people did in public - walking included - to be so disgusting she couldn't stand to look at it? So she doesn't want to see fat people walking around, but wants them to exercise. What, is she proposing that overweight folks exile themselves to their basements until they're of an appropriate weight? That they form some sort of leper colony for hefty people?
Then again, I guess these characters are in Overeaters Anonymous. So ... points for trying?
ZeldaQueen: How about points for representing people from that particular walk of life? Heaven forbid we see the viewpoints of people who have to deal with being fat
Then again, I tend to think most television shows are a kind of junk food for the mind and body. The boob tube gives us an excuse to turn off both our brains and our bodies and probably does a helluva lot to contribute to the obesity problem, over all. So ... I don't know.
ZeldaQueen: So what's the weather channel and the evening news? Wait, scratch that last one, doesn't help
What do you guys think? Fat people making out on TV - are you cool with it? Do you think I'm being an insensitive jerk?
ZeldaQueen: Erm, no comment
Maura Kelly posted an apology after this article. She acknowledged the points about obesity stemming from medical and psychological reasons and explains that she was glad that people of all walks of life are being represented in media and was trying to say that she did not think morbid obesity should be promoted. She finished by admitting that her reaction may have stemmed from her own history suffering from anorexia and being obsessed with thinness.
While the desire to raise concerns against morbid obesity is admirable, the issue here is that she failed to do so. Instead of speculating on the issue, she quickly focused her article on fat people in general and how it's gross, y'know? And while it's nice that she saw fit to bring up the medical and psychological issues behind obesity in her follow-up, she really ought to have included that the first time around. To me, the best way to state a point is to acknowledge possible explanations or relevant theories or data. By focusing on the "eat less and exercise" track, Kelly gave the impression that all she knew or cared about was the idea that people are only fat through overeating. Had she allowed herself any speculation on the other issues, or at least admitted that she knew about them, she might have come across as a bit less narrow-minded.
I must confess that I'm also very confused at her point of this. It seemed to jump from "This show promotes obesity" to "fat people are disgusting and shouldn't kiss or even walk in public" to "there's no reason fat people can't get skinny". She also jumps from making general points about obesity and the dangers and costs of it to just diving into the broad generalizations stemming from her own short-sightedness.
From what I gathered, besides complaining about how gross fat people are in public, she insisted that her point was that the show seemed to be promoting obesity. If anything, from what I've seen, today's media have it go the opposite way. Fat people, as well as "fat" people are often the butt of jokes, being lazy, slobbish, clownish, and just weak willed in the face of something chocolate. That's not universal, I know, but it seems that a show that makes a point of showing overweight people sympathetically, trying to deal with things, wouldn't exactly be likely to corrupt today's youth. Heck, as said above, the character of Mike is trying to diet and lose weight. And after all, wasn't that what Maura Kelly was going on about?
I heard about this article and I expected to be really angry after reading it. Honestly though, I'm just perplexed. Besides revealing her own narrow mindedness, I fail to see what this brings to the table. She offended people over a topic which has been done a million times before, in far more insightful and helpful ways. So really, what's the point?
Update - it seems that there's a bit more to the story, and that Marie Claire might have been spinning the article for attention. According to the article in the link,
"So it seems Marie Claire editors read a story on CNN about the topic of large actors and characters, wanted to spin it with fat-loathing and sexy edges to attract attention, gave it to a writer with an established history of anorexia/bulimia, and asked for a quick turnaround. This game is not new to Marie Claire; Jenna Hatfield wrote recently about the magazine seeking similar attention by panning fitness bloggers.
If that's true, the "Fattie" article is emblematic of all that is wrong in reactive media. It's a horrifying calculus that makes Killing Us Softly look like a child's abacus. A massively influential magazine with a sizable Internet reach quickly publishes exploitative, hateful linkbait by hiring someone with a personal bias and distress rooted in the massively destructive body image problem that is the bread and butter (so to speak) that that type of women's magazine"
ZeldaQueen: If that really is true, then I guess it means that the magazine decided to sacrifice an opportunity for a well-written and fair story for something attention grabbing and horribly offensive. I shouldn't be surprised by this. A lot of people probably think I'm stupid for being surprised by it. Hell, the Weekly World News made its entire career by twisted the truth and outright lying about stuff. People are always going on about the dad-blasted media, just in it for a quick buck these days.
I guess it's not surprise so much as befuddlement. Okay, Marie Claire wanted something to get attention. Ultimately, I'm sure that they were hoping to attract more readers, because that's their goal - to get more readers and thus make more money. But what did they think would happen by printing a story like that? Did they honestly think that the new business would outweigh the vast number of appalled and offended people who decided to never again purchase a Marie Claire magazine?
Furthermore, I realize that when someone's trying to sell something, there's the "no such thing as bad publicity" state of mind, but I still have to wonder about that. So they generated a lot of controversy and got a lot of attention. Seems like a bit of a gamble though, considering that this will probably haunt them all for some time. Wouldn't it have occurred to them that it would be better in the long run to write their story while avoiding the sentiments of "fat people are gross and shouldn't kiss in public!"
And yes, I'm well aware that I'm hopelessly naive about these things. I know that nothing gets attention like a good old controversial statement and, given the choice, these folks would take the quick and easy junk food stories over the wholesome, fresh, healthy ones.
You see what I did thar?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ZeldaQueen: And that's all I have to say about that. Had to get that off of my chest and I hope I didn't bore you all to tears, so yeah. ^^; Back to the sporks!
Return to the Sporking Chambers
Projection Room Voices: Starting Media in 3...2...1...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Should "Fatties" Get a Room? (Even on TV?)
The other day, my editor asked me, "Do you really think people feel uncomfortable when they see overweight people making out on television?"
ZeldaQueen: Which really makes one wonder what leads to that conversation-opener
Because I can be kind of clueless - I'm not much of a TV person - I had no idea what she was talking about, so she steered me to this CNN article, about the CBS sitcom Mike & Molly. As CNN explains, "the show centers around a couple who meet at an Overeaters Anonymous group [and] has drawn complaints for its abundance of fat jokes [as well as] cries from some viewers who aren't comfortable watching intimacy between two plus-sized actors."
ZeldaQueen: Right. I'm going to admit right off of the bat that I have never seen Mike & Molly before either. For those of you who aren't familiar with the series, Wikipedia explains it thusly
"The series, set in Chicago, Illinois, follows two people, Mike Biggs, a police officer who wants to shed some pounds, and Molly Flynn, a fourth-grade teacher wanting to embrace her curves, who meet at an Overeaters Anonymous group and become an unlikely pair. However, they also have to deal with the comments, jokes, and criticism from Mike's fast-talking partner Carl McMillan, Molly's slim sister Victoria and mother Joyce, and Samuel, a Senegalese waiter at the officers' favorite restaurant."
My initial response was: Hmm, being overweight is one thing - those people are downright obese! And while I think our country's obsession with physical perfection is unhealthy, I also think it's at least equally crazy, albeit in the other direction, to be implicitly promoting obesity!
ZeldaQueen: Except that it sort of isn't, since we see that Mike wants to lose the weight
Yes, anorexia is sick, but at least some slim models are simply naturally skinny.
ZeldaQueen: And some overweight people are naturally overweight. There's a ton of genetic, medical, and psychological reasons why people are overweight, just like there's genetic, medical, and psychological reasons for people to be stick thin
No one who is as fat as Mike and Molly can be healthy. And obesity is costing our country far more in terms of all the related health problems we are paying for, by way of our insurance, than any other health problem, even cancer.
So anyway, yes, I think I'd be grossed out if I had to watch two characters with rolls and rolls of fat kissing each other ... because I'd be grossed out if I had to watch them doing anything. To be brutally honest, even in real life, I find it aesthetically displeasing to watch a very, very fat person simply walk across a room - just like I'd find it distressing if I saw a very drunk person stumbling across a bar or a heroine addict slumping in a chair.
ZeldaQueen: How lovely, that we're equating overweight people kissing or doing "anything" to engaging in alcoholism or heroine abuse. Because it's "aesthetically displeasing", right.
You know, there's probably folks who find watching anorexic-thin supermodels "aesthetically displeasing" and hate to watch then do "anything". So, should skinny people be kept out of public as well? Who's to say?
Now, don't go getting the wrong impression: I have a few friends who could be called plump.
ZeldaQueen: Yes, "plump". Nicely worded for the people you don't want to offend
I'm not some size-ist jerk.
ZeldaQueen: *raises eyebrows*
And I also know how tough it can be for truly heavy people to psych themselves up for the long process of slimming down. (For instance, the overweight maintenance guy at my gym has talked to me a little bit about how it seems worthless for him to even try working out, because he's been heavy for as long as he can remember.)
ZeldaQueen: Yet again, there's more to being overweight than it simply being too much food
But ... I think obesity is something that most people have a ton of control over. It's something they can change, if only they put their minds to it.
(I'm happy to give you some nutrition and fitness suggestions if you need them - but long story short, eat more fresh and unprocessed foods, read labels and avoid foods with any kind of processed sweetener in them whether it's cane sugar or high fructose corn syrup, increase the amount of fiber you're getting, get some kind of exercise for 30 minutes at least five times a week, and do everything you can to stand up more - even while using your computer - and walk more. I admit that there's plenty that makes slimming down tough, but YOU CAN DO IT! Trust me. It will take some time, but you'll also feel so good, physically and emotionally. A nutritionist or personal trainer will help - and if you can't afford one, visit your local YMCA for some advice.)
ZeldaQueen: Oh, how nice. I think you can get that advice from nine million other magazines and websites and wellness commercials.
Look, I'm not saying that eating healthily and exercising are bad, far from it. And I'm not saying that there aren't people in the world who really can benefit from it, especially in today's age of electronics and convenience. But to just tell an overweight person "You can do it! Just eat less! Only have fresh foods! Exercise more! Keep at it and get a personal trainer if you can!" is like telling an anorexic person "Hey, you look great! You don't need to lose any more weight! Just eat right and you'll be fine! Here, eat this sandwich!" It just doesn't work, because there's other factors.
Psychological, for example. There are people whose weight problems are a result of a lot of stress or self esteem issues. Relationship issues, family problems, trouble with finances or work, all of those things can cause people to overeat to deal with issues. In that case, the weight isn't the problem, the issues causing the stress are. The person's problem isn't that they're fat, it's that they're going to lose their house. Or were dumped by their boyfriend. Or are being pressured by Mom and Dad to get into a really prestigious college.
And there's the simple factor that a lot of people overlook - finances. Some people simply can't afford the resources needed to get themselves into top shape. Fresh food is expensive, especially depending on where a person lives. Fruits and vegetables are seasonal, so unless you live in California or Florida, you're going to be paying through the nose to get stuff in the fall and winter months. Now say that a person is dirt poor and has a very limited budget. Which are they more likely to go towards - the fresh produce which will leave them broke for a month, or the instant macaroni?
Same with the exercise. Not everyone has a YMCA or personal trainers available. One could argue that a friend or family member could help with the exercise regimes. Okay, that's fine (assuming one has a friend or family member available to help enforce a ridged work-out schedule). That does lead to a bit of hypocrisy though. Didn't Maura Kelly just say that she found anything fat people did in public - walking included - to be so disgusting she couldn't stand to look at it? So she doesn't want to see fat people walking around, but wants them to exercise. What, is she proposing that overweight folks exile themselves to their basements until they're of an appropriate weight? That they form some sort of leper colony for hefty people?
Then again, I guess these characters are in Overeaters Anonymous. So ... points for trying?
ZeldaQueen: How about points for representing people from that particular walk of life? Heaven forbid we see the viewpoints of people who have to deal with being fat
Then again, I tend to think most television shows are a kind of junk food for the mind and body. The boob tube gives us an excuse to turn off both our brains and our bodies and probably does a helluva lot to contribute to the obesity problem, over all. So ... I don't know.
ZeldaQueen: So what's the weather channel and the evening news? Wait, scratch that last one, doesn't help
What do you guys think? Fat people making out on TV - are you cool with it? Do you think I'm being an insensitive jerk?
ZeldaQueen: Erm, no comment
Maura Kelly posted an apology after this article. She acknowledged the points about obesity stemming from medical and psychological reasons and explains that she was glad that people of all walks of life are being represented in media and was trying to say that she did not think morbid obesity should be promoted. She finished by admitting that her reaction may have stemmed from her own history suffering from anorexia and being obsessed with thinness.
While the desire to raise concerns against morbid obesity is admirable, the issue here is that she failed to do so. Instead of speculating on the issue, she quickly focused her article on fat people in general and how it's gross, y'know? And while it's nice that she saw fit to bring up the medical and psychological issues behind obesity in her follow-up, she really ought to have included that the first time around. To me, the best way to state a point is to acknowledge possible explanations or relevant theories or data. By focusing on the "eat less and exercise" track, Kelly gave the impression that all she knew or cared about was the idea that people are only fat through overeating. Had she allowed herself any speculation on the other issues, or at least admitted that she knew about them, she might have come across as a bit less narrow-minded.
I must confess that I'm also very confused at her point of this. It seemed to jump from "This show promotes obesity" to "fat people are disgusting and shouldn't kiss or even walk in public" to "there's no reason fat people can't get skinny". She also jumps from making general points about obesity and the dangers and costs of it to just diving into the broad generalizations stemming from her own short-sightedness.
From what I gathered, besides complaining about how gross fat people are in public, she insisted that her point was that the show seemed to be promoting obesity. If anything, from what I've seen, today's media have it go the opposite way. Fat people, as well as "fat" people are often the butt of jokes, being lazy, slobbish, clownish, and just weak willed in the face of something chocolate. That's not universal, I know, but it seems that a show that makes a point of showing overweight people sympathetically, trying to deal with things, wouldn't exactly be likely to corrupt today's youth. Heck, as said above, the character of Mike is trying to diet and lose weight. And after all, wasn't that what Maura Kelly was going on about?
I heard about this article and I expected to be really angry after reading it. Honestly though, I'm just perplexed. Besides revealing her own narrow mindedness, I fail to see what this brings to the table. She offended people over a topic which has been done a million times before, in far more insightful and helpful ways. So really, what's the point?
Update - it seems that there's a bit more to the story, and that Marie Claire might have been spinning the article for attention. According to the article in the link,
"So it seems Marie Claire editors read a story on CNN about the topic of large actors and characters, wanted to spin it with fat-loathing and sexy edges to attract attention, gave it to a writer with an established history of anorexia/bulimia, and asked for a quick turnaround. This game is not new to Marie Claire; Jenna Hatfield wrote recently about the magazine seeking similar attention by panning fitness bloggers.
If that's true, the "Fattie" article is emblematic of all that is wrong in reactive media. It's a horrifying calculus that makes Killing Us Softly look like a child's abacus. A massively influential magazine with a sizable Internet reach quickly publishes exploitative, hateful linkbait by hiring someone with a personal bias and distress rooted in the massively destructive body image problem that is the bread and butter (so to speak) that that type of women's magazine"
ZeldaQueen: If that really is true, then I guess it means that the magazine decided to sacrifice an opportunity for a well-written and fair story for something attention grabbing and horribly offensive. I shouldn't be surprised by this. A lot of people probably think I'm stupid for being surprised by it. Hell, the Weekly World News made its entire career by twisted the truth and outright lying about stuff. People are always going on about the dad-blasted media, just in it for a quick buck these days.
I guess it's not surprise so much as befuddlement. Okay, Marie Claire wanted something to get attention. Ultimately, I'm sure that they were hoping to attract more readers, because that's their goal - to get more readers and thus make more money. But what did they think would happen by printing a story like that? Did they honestly think that the new business would outweigh the vast number of appalled and offended people who decided to never again purchase a Marie Claire magazine?
Furthermore, I realize that when someone's trying to sell something, there's the "no such thing as bad publicity" state of mind, but I still have to wonder about that. So they generated a lot of controversy and got a lot of attention. Seems like a bit of a gamble though, considering that this will probably haunt them all for some time. Wouldn't it have occurred to them that it would be better in the long run to write their story while avoiding the sentiments of "fat people are gross and shouldn't kiss in public!"
And yes, I'm well aware that I'm hopelessly naive about these things. I know that nothing gets attention like a good old controversial statement and, given the choice, these folks would take the quick and easy junk food stories over the wholesome, fresh, healthy ones.
You see what I did thar?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ZeldaQueen: And that's all I have to say about that. Had to get that off of my chest and I hope I didn't bore you all to tears, so yeah. ^^; Back to the sporks!
Return to the Sporking Chambers