French ban on skinny models - implications for size activism?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32174364
It might come as a surprise to some who know me, but I actually find this development profoundly worrying. Don't get me wrong, I understand the reasoning behind it. Anorexia is a horrible illness that (whatever we may be told) kills far more people and far younger than so-called obesity. I know that the enforcement of the oppressive weight standards that prevail in the world of high fashion modelling, and the actions of fat activists and plus-sized models attempting to reclaim their own identities and allow others who have been told that they are flawed, unattractive and of lesser worth are two entirely different things. Now, I know that the enforcement of the oppressive weight standards that prevail in the world of high fashion modelling, and the actions of fat activists and plus-sized models attempting to reclaim their own identities and allow others who have been told that they are flawed, unattractive and of lesser worth are two entirely different things. And yet, the thrust of many of the comments threads on this story overwhelmingly indicates that I am in the minority in holding this view. Most of those commenting on the Guardian and Daily Mail versions of this item have relatively little to say on underweight models, but wax apoplectic about the fact that it is still OK to say that 'big is beautiful' or for their child to be taught about obesity by a fat teacher or treated by a fat nurse, doctor or social worker (all professions that have been charged with the task of denormalising fat).

It would be easier to dismiss them as the usual fat-hating rantings of the online commentariat were it not for the fact that doctors and activists have at various points in recent years made the same demands. Such is the power of the argument that even the mere sight of a fat person (unless being chastised by Jillian Michales or sobbing into their pizza on a Ch4 documentary) amounts to 'promoting an unhealthy state', that one MP even went so far as to advocate all NHS and teaching staff being given 12mths 'grace' to get their BMI under 25 by whatever means necessary, or face suspension / termination. The fact is that despite howls of outrage about 'normalising obesity', media weight standards are such that the numbers of fat singers, kids' TV presenters etc are so small as to be inconsequential. Consider the enormous controversy and hate generated by Tess Holliday, the first ACTUAL fat model to make inroads into mainstream culture. But that's not really why Tam Fry, Jamie Oliver et al want weight limits for those considered 'role models'. For them, and I suspect for many of those supporting this course of action, it's another symbolic opportunity for those who through their 'correct' weight have access to the moral high ground to reinforce the lesser status of fat people, and present their very presence as being harmful to the social good.

In the UK, there have been calls for a ban on underweight models for many years. (Before the 'obesity' hysteria, the Govt and many councils supported a more varied representation of different sizes, including larger people, in media). Currently, websites and pages deemed to be 'promoting' an unhealthy body size (and just imagine how that language could be turned against size acceptance with very little effort) are automatically blocked by ISPs and may soon be censored altogether under David Cameron's firewall scheme. Obviously I don't like or approve of pro-anorexia websites (not least because they are, as you'd imagine, often viciously fat-hating) but on this occasion I am far more concerned about the idea of using the law to mandate a particular acceptable size and potentially, to suppress the ability to even speak freely about weight and size. For the first time it is not inconceivable that by running a blog or making a FB post stating that it's OK to be fat, that fat people are beautiful, valid and deserving of rights, etc, I and many others could end up on the wrong side of what would be a profoundly bigoted and unjust law. How that would help the sufferers of anorexia and bulimia (and I know of several whose exposure to fat acceptance helped them overcome their condition) is really anyone's guess...

Child mental health and the 'war on obesity' - two sides of the same coin.

It never fails to make me laugh when I hear doctors and experts banging on about how we need to 'do more' to eliminate so-called childhood obesity. Especially when in the next sentence they go on to bemoan the growing mental health crisis amongst Britain's children and youngsters, who by many measures are some of the most depressed, angry, stressed and anxious in the world.

Here's a perfect example: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31661794


Don't they realise that the obsessive focus on beating our kids around the head with the message that fat is the worst thing ever is one of the major sources of those mental health problems? And that's not only in fat children who now spend their entire childhoods being poked, prodded, weighed, pathologised, problematised and reminded a dozen times a day that their 'unacceptable' bodies reflect poorly not only on them but on their parents too.

It also affects the average-sized and thin children who are encouraged to fear fatness and the accompanying stigma - the kids who end up throwing away their lunch, who bully fat kids as a way of reinforcing their 'normal' status, whose parents become preoccupied with calories, exercise, and other things that under-10s shouldn't even have to worry about.

Look. Cookery lessons are good. It's a useful skill to have, though no panacea in a world where work demands ever more of our lives. Running about outside (provided it doesn't become a power trip for the PE teacher, and allows those who don't enjoy competitive team sports to find other ways to move) is good, as kids have far more energy than adults, and a lack of an outlet can cause behavioural problems. Providing a hot nutritious meal at lunchtime, originally motivated by the numbers of children going hungry, is good (and yet, that original goal has been undermined by reductions in portion sizes motivated by fear of 'obesity').

But for me it's all about the way it's framed. And these days, any such initiative has to be motivated by a desire to 'fight obesity'. 'We're not putting in bike lanes to provide a safer and more sustainable way of getting about. We're doing it to make the fatties thin'. What a negative motivation, and one that reminds fat and thin alike that this is about solving the 'problem' of their existence. I would much rather see the approach favoured in the 2012 'Reflections' report, which because its conclusions didn't support the obesity moral panic was ridiculed, denigrated and ultimately forgotten.

I am actually surprised that 'childhood obesity' HASN'T been a bigger election issue. But I suspect that's largely down to the cozy consensus amongst every one of the parties. None have indicated that there will be a ceasefire or even a tactical withdrawal in the war on fat people. They all take the legitimacy of its existence as a given. More worryingly, if the figures reported in the article are correct, the majority of the public have fallen for it. The Royal College of Paediatrics has very much got its own way, and it doesn't even seem to realise it.