# is the term size acceptance too whimpy?



## superodalisque (Nov 19, 2007)

i was thinking today about the term "size acceptance" and what it really means. it somewhat bothers me that people are asking to be "accepted". i think the most important thing would be to accept yourself personally and then sue the pants off anyone who violates your rights. "size acceptance" just sounds whimpy to me. 

i also wonder if it is good to seperate that from plain old rights? because once you seperate yourself you become the other and it seems easier for other people with the same concerns not to relate. for instance, i wonder if issues with the airlines would be better solved by creating a passengers bill of rights and having all people with a beef sign on. that would include everyone from passengers required to buy a second seat to the lady who was forced off the plane for wearing a mini, or someone denied the right to breastfeed. do you think something like that would be more effective or am i all wet?

PS: excuse me if you notice typos--i can't spell and for some reason my spellcheck wouldn't kick in.


----------



## vaio (Nov 19, 2007)

My take on size acceptance is that it is all about people of size accepting themselves and their friends an admirers standing up for/standing up to people of size and society, respectively.

I think the idea of approaching problems that all people have from a size neutral perspective might be more effective.:bow:


----------



## Smushygirl (Nov 19, 2007)

Ok, Wonkette, I know what you really want! Fat Power!!!


----------



## goofy girl (Nov 20, 2007)

The term size acceptance has always somewhat bothered me. My interpretation of it is just as it says..to accept everyone no matter what their size...if someone is 650lbs they are just as much a person as a person who is 150. On the flip side, I also think that people who demand acceptance should reciprocate the same...meaning, that IF someone is 125lbs, get to know them first before labeling them a "skinny bitch". I think that the term size acceptance is important to remember that it should include ALL sizes and shapes. 
 
I have no idea if this makes any sense..it's 6:00am and I haven't had coffee yet...so this might be one of those things that sound OK in my head and when I get home from work at 6 tonight I'll look at it and say "wtf??"


----------



## CandySmooch (Nov 20, 2007)

goofy girl said:


> The term size acceptance has always somewhat bothered me. My interpretation of it is just as it says..to accept everyone no matter what their size...if someone is 650lbs they are just as much a person as a person who is 150. On the flip side, I also think that people who demand acceptance should reciprocate the same...meaning, that IF someone is 125lbs, get to know them first before labeling them a "skinny bitch". I think that the term size acceptance is important to remember that it should include ALL sizes and shapes.
> QUOTE]
> 
> I'm totally with you on this - size acceptance is for ALL & EVERYONE, not just us bigg'ens. So the term itself doesn't bother me and I find it quite fitting.
> ...


----------



## t3h_n00b (Nov 21, 2007)

superodalisque said:


> i was thinking today about the term "size acceptance" and what it really means. it somewhat bothers me that people are asking to be "accepted". i think the most important thing would be to accept yourself personally and then sue the pants off anyone who violates your rights. "size acceptance" just sounds whimpy to me.
> 
> i also wonder if it is good to seperate that from plain old rights? because once you seperate yourself you become the other and it seems easier for other people with the same concerns not to relate. for instance, i wonder if issues with the airlines would be better solved by creating a passengers bill of rights and having all people with a beef sign on. that would include everyone from passengers required to buy a second seat to the lady who was forced off the plane for wearing a mini, or someone denied the right to breastfeed. do you think something like that would be more effective or am i all wet?
> 
> PS: excuse me if you notice typos--i can't spell and for some reason my spellcheck wouldn't kick in.



Yes, it is a very wimpy term. We, in this society (America/Western Europe), tend not to realize that being "mainstream" is not being accepted, it is being celebrated. This is what I think is wrong with the concept of "tolerance" being used as the rubric for how people should deal with difference. As if they should say "I hate you and will do anything in my power in the institutional sense to make your life miserable, but I won't call you a nasty name because I can tolerate your presence for briefly." For all the work it takes to even establish that tolerance is good, the pay off leaves a lot to be desired. It doesn't address the underlying antipathy and hostility. Tolerance implies that something is actually wrong with the "toleree" but that the "toleree" should be the bigger person and just let things go. Acceptance is the same sort of thing. I think that what those in the Fat Acceptance movement want is celebration of who they are and an appreciation of their beauty and worth.


----------



## Chimpi (Nov 21, 2007)

t3h_n00b said:


> I think that what those in the Fat Acceptance movement want is celebration of who they are and an appreciation of their beauty and worth.



My interpretation is that I do not think that is the case. I think most fat people want to just be considered equal. For example, the plane seating issue. We should not have to pay double the price just to fly somewhere (anywhere). There should be seating on the plane to accommodate all sizes of people, and not just lump all seats together so that the airline can make extra cash. Same goes with movie theaters. Why are the only fat seats selective to the very front of the theater? Fat people have to break their neck to watch a movie, but _everyone else_ does not? That's bullshit.
Whether it's plane seats, movie theater seats, concert seating, walking down the street, furniture selection, any/all of the above and much more, *everyone* should have the option to be as comfortable as the person next to them. To be accepted by society is a marvelous thing. Something that is taken for granted by millions of people.
As it is, I think the term Size Acceptance is fitting. I like the term, and I qualify as someone that supports it.

I like to think that those of us who love fat people will be the ones to celebrate the fat person.


----------



## t3h_n00b (Nov 21, 2007)

Chimpi said:


> My interpretation is that I do not think that is the case. I think most fat people want to just be considered equal. For example, the plane seating issue. We should not have to pay double the price just to fly somewhere (anywhere). There should be seating on the plane to accommodate all sizes of people, and not just lump all seats together so that the airline can make extra cash. Same goes with movie theaters. Why are the only fat seats selective to the very front of the theater? Fat people have to break their neck to watch a movie, but _everyone else_ does not? That's bullshit.
> Whether it's plane seats, movie theater seats, concert seating, walking down the street, furniture selection, any/all of the above and much more, *everyone* should have the option to be as comfortable as the person next to them. To be accepted by society is a marvelous thing. Something that is taken for granted by millions of people.
> As it is, I think the term Size Acceptance is fitting. I like the term, and I qualify as someone that supports it.
> 
> I like to think that those of us who love fat people will be the ones to celebrate the fat person.



I can understand that. I just can't help think of the way that the scenarios you described, because of their implicit message of average sized normativity, in a very small way celebrate the bodies of those people who are accepted by society. I just think there's more to be attained than mere acceptance. As a person who fits that "normal" body size label, I know that I'm not just accepted, I'm celebrated in the depictions of models, the manufacturing of chairs, the purchasing of single plane tickets, etc. I am privileged because of my size. The opposite of privilege is not equality or acceptance, its disprivilege, and I think that that is how fat people are treated (maybe I'm wrong though). I agree that those of us who love fat people are the ones who should celebrate them, but I also think we've got a lot of loving to do to equal the degree to which "normal sized" people are loved by this society.


----------



## Judge_Dre (Nov 21, 2007)

If "size acceptance" is too wimpy for you, how about "fat supremacy?"
Too militant? 

View attachment pb3.jpg


----------



## goofy girl (Nov 21, 2007)

UGH.....that cartoon pissed me off!! How insulting! THOSE are the kinds of things that get under my skin..I guess stereotypes of any sort bug me.


----------



## superodalisque (Nov 21, 2007)

Smushygirl said:


> Ok, Wonkette, I know what you really want! Fat Power!!!



damn straight fellow wonkette! lol. instead of raising our fists in the air like the black panthers maybe we could stick out our bellies instead


----------



## superodalisque (Nov 21, 2007)

goofy girl said:


> UGH.....that cartoon pissed me off!! How insulting! THOSE are the kinds of things that get under my skin..I guess stereotypes of any sort bug me.



me too. i'm too proud to be a joke


----------



## superodalisque (Nov 21, 2007)

Chimpi said:


> My interpretation is that I do not think that is the case. I think most fat people want to just be considered equal. For example, the plane seating issue. We should not have to pay double the price just to fly somewhere (anywhere). There should be seating on the plane to accommodate all sizes of people, and not just lump all seats together so that the airline can make extra cash. Same goes with movie theaters. Why are the only fat seats selective to the very front of the theater? Fat people have to break their neck to watch a movie, but _everyone else_ does not? That's bullshit.
> Whether it's plane seats, movie theater seats, concert seating, walking down the street, furniture selection, any/all of the above and much more, *everyone* should have the option to be as comfortable as the person next to them. To be accepted by society is a marvelous thing. Something that is taken for granted by millions of people.
> As it is, I think the term Size Acceptance is fitting. I like the term, and I qualify as someone that supports it.
> 
> I like to think that those of us who love fat people will be the ones to celebrate the fat person.




i do support the spirit behind it but i still think sometimes it sounds a bit like whining and begging.

as for the theatre seats--i agree they should accomodate people better. there are a lot of big people where i live and the new theatres all have stadium seating and the new ones are replacing the old seats. reason being is that there are a lot of supers here as a matter of form. also even thin folk would rather not be squeezed in to old hard tiny seats. i love how you can raise the armrests. it would be nice if the airlines had seats like that. if i traveled coach i would buy two seats on my own unless i was traveling with a friend because i would hate to make someone else who had paid uncomfortable just because i adore my twinkies and ho hos.


----------



## k1009 (Nov 21, 2007)

I like "size awareness and acceptance". For smaller chubs like me the supersized world is one I can't even fathom until I hear something like "hygeine aid" or about arms on chairs preventing a person from sitting down in public. As smaller person still I wasn't aware of any of the stuff that affects smaller fat girls. I think it's good to be aware of how other people live their lives and accepting of their choices. There are some things that come under the umbrella of size acceptance that I disagree with completely, but for the most part I think it's a good term that could be ammended just a little bit to include awareness. Then it would rock.


----------



## superodalisque (Nov 21, 2007)

t3h_n00b said:


> Yes, it is a very wimpy term. We, in this society (America/Western Europe), tend not to realize that being "mainstream" is not being accepted, it is being celebrated. This is what I think is wrong with the concept of "tolerance" being used as the rubric for how people should deal with difference. As if they should say "I hate you and will do anything in my power in the institutional sense to make your life miserable, but I won't call you a nasty name because I can tolerate your presence for briefly." For all the work it takes to even establish that tolerance is good, the pay off leaves a lot to be desired. It doesn't address the underlying antipathy and hostility. Tolerance implies that something is actually wrong with the "toleree" but that the "toleree" should be the bigger person and just let things go. Acceptance is the same sort of thing. I think that what those in the Fat Acceptance movement want is celebration of who they are and an appreciation of their beauty and worth.



yes 100%. i think it should be more about teaching people to adore us rather than being meerly accepted. in places like japan where they rarely see a super if ever they just thought i was cute and different. what a nice approach to something they had probably never experienced. people even asked to touch.
what is it about american society that makes us so prone to express disgust toward anything different or rare in human beings?


----------



## superodalisque (Nov 21, 2007)

k1009 said:


> I like "size awareness and acceptance". For smaller chubs like me the supersized world is one I can't even fathom until I hear something like "hygeine aid" or about arms on chairs preventing a person from sitting down in public. As smaller person still I wasn't aware of any of the stuff that affects smaller fat girls. I think it's good to be aware of how other people live their lives and accepting of their choices. There are some things that come under the umbrella of size acceptance that I disagree with completely, but for the most part I think it's a good term that could be ammended just a little bit to include awareness. Then it would rock.



size awareness sounds good even though it doesn't sound very militant lol. i like how it covers a variety of issues. but mainly the teaching aspect of it is great. the educational apsect of awareness would touch everyone on every level. understanding is a great starting point.


----------



## k1009 (Nov 21, 2007)

superodalisque said:


> size awareness sounds good even though it doesn't sound very militant lol. i like how it covers a variety of issues. but mainly the teaching aspect of it is great. the educational apsect of awareness would touch everyone on every level. understanding is a great starting point.



I think the starting point for acceptance is really awareness. I know that a lot of thin people look at me and think I'm just a disgusting lump of overindulging fat (hey, I'm not disgusting!!!!) but what if they knew what it was like to be fat? What if they knew that fat isn't directly correlated to food intake and exercise? Would they treat me better then? Would they be willing to make certain concessions for me and other fat people?


----------



## southernfa (Nov 21, 2007)

superodalisque said:


> what is it about american society that makes us so prone to express disgust toward anything different or rare in human beings?



Unfortunately, bigotry is not a purely American phenomenon... 
I'm inclined to think it is the bigotry that is the issue and 'fat' is merely the object. Deal with the underlying psyche causes and the object becomes irrelevant.

There is also the issue of simple preference. Doubtless some people do find fat unattractive just as some find skinny displeasing (my favourite was a local newscaster who described supermodels as 'toothpicks with hair').


----------



## t3h_n00b (Nov 22, 2007)

superodalisque said:


> yes 100%. i think it should be more about teaching people to adore us rather than being meerly accepted. in places like japan where they rarely see a super if ever they just thought i was cute and different. what a nice approach to something they had probably never experienced. people even asked to touch.
> what is it about american society that makes us so prone to express disgust toward anything different or rare in human beings?



I think it has to do with how we came to be as a nation. We needed an ideology like racism to justify the theft of the continent and the enslavement of millions of people to build the economic base of the country. It's our traditional way of dealing with difference; we hate it, subordinate it, and exploit it. It is the true American way.


----------



## Jon Blaze (Nov 23, 2007)

I thought tryptophan was supposed to put you to sleep. Oh wait, that's a myth.

I wouldn't say "Wimpy" per se, but because it exists on a level that is analogous with other types of equality views (And/or a fight against prejudice): I believe it should exist on a level that has a name similar to those (Or what I talk about below).

I haven't said much about the concepts I've sort of separated on my own when it comes to what I do (Or what I plan on doing in the future rather), but I kind of have two "Concepts" behind the whole thing: Size "Acceptance," and Size "Equality."

Now: Fat Acceptance (Physiologically) is the disbelief in the correlation between weight and health. 
Size Acceptance, to me is the disbelief in a correlation between morality, and bodyweight (That's me trying to be a dictionary, and I know I suck), or in other words, "Not caring about a person's size when it comes to interactions."

I have no problems with Size Acceptance, in that in itself it doesn't imply apathy when people actually begin to understand it instead of thinking "wut omg ur tryna make an excuse to stay fat/thin/wuteva", but I believe in the case of Size Equality that there's no exceptions to the rule*, and the way I use it is I guess you can say "Fat Acceptance lite" again?

Or Size Acceptance lite rather, or Size Acceptance for the new school kids version 3.0. Damn, I don't know.

You accept everyone (Thin, chubby, fat, blah blah blah, descriptors descriptors), you can advocate whatever you wish that isn't directly related to a person's size (Try tact if you can), and while we all have preferences of sexual natures, they should not cross acceptance, as they are different things. In other words: If you like x (Fat partners/thin partners/both/tall partners/short partners, you don't have to berate y, because you think it impresses x, or whatever reason you deem necessary. Heh heh... *Laughs* 

I'm all for equal rights for people of size and not of size when it comes to society as a whole (And organizations *Giggles and smiles*), but in any case of any characteristic: I do not wish for society to come for the every beckon of every group that is oppressed. I'm not judging groups of which I do and don't know, but I DO know there's always potential for corruption (i.e.: "Reverse Sizeism" and reverse racism: They piss me off. ). I want reason to come from this.

- The estimated number of people that are killed by Anorexia Nervosa is 1% of 10% of the US population. That is a cool (See: Uncool  ) 300,000 people.

If we were to have socialized health care for example, I wouldn't argue that anorectics should have to pay more. Especially since I know science had better pull out some serious ammo to validate a prejudice (And it better make the link that prejudice HELPS in some way to make people change**, or I'm not even considering doing anything). Everyone should pay the same amount (Or the more practical answer: Fill all gaps).

I'm a fat admirer (Not to some, because ZOMFG ONOZ t3h thin women ["Take me to the Brig! I don't mind!]," and I love satire!  ), but when things like binge eating disorder, and anorexia nervosa come up: I'll definitely be concerned. However, these are dualistic (Psychological disorders that can lead to physical effects in this case). As soon as the psychology or something else unrelated to size kicks in, I am ready to flex the muscle (Or my lack thereof)! 

Those are examples when I don't see bodyweights as indicative of diseases, but POSSIBLE symptoms of diseases/disorders. This doesn't make me a concern troll, because I'm not picking groups: I'm picking people, and you all know the beginning tends to be tactful for me if I react (Big emphasis on "If I react").

All in all:
I think Size Acceptance is good for what it's worth, but I think if we are going to continue on, that it might be applicable to add terms, facets, definitions, and separate concepts more, but of course not to the point that things become separate in themselves. They should all link to one goal, that is "Size/Body" something! Size EQUALITY! SIZE JUSTICE! BODY PRIDE! SIZE ETHICS/BIOETHICS! SIZE HUMANISM!! SIZE ALTRUISM! SIZE RATIONALE! Size logic... kinda.. SIZE Meta-phy..... well we know we can't use the last one, because it doesn't make any sense. 

*It's not that I think the current organizations have messages that are always biased, but I know for a fact that there's people on both lines that hate the opposite. Those are not standards, however.
Fat Acceptance and Size Acceptance are different, and I do realize that in the case of the former: Not all people in it defend thin people, but again I don't want people to cross concepts, and say that not defending someone means you hate them.
Sandie (Rapunzel d' le mods ) said in a post awhile ago that I can dredge up if anyone wants to see that she does not defend thin people in her activism (Which may or may not be true, but...). That does not make hypocritical or bigoted, because of what I said above. That being the case, she doesn't hate thin people, and I will formally say that I thank her for each and every contribution that she has made for the movement. And she went on moral court! Sandie rules! 

</tryptophan didn't work, so I need some diphenhydramine kthxbai>


----------



## Zoom (Nov 23, 2007)

goofy girl said:


> UGH.....that cartoon pissed me off!! How insulting! THOSE are the kinds of things that get under my skin..I guess stereotypes of any sort bug me.


Yes, I agree that it can be insulting. However, in Judge Dredd's future, _everything_ is magnified to ridiculosity and nothing is safe from parody.

What had happened in this case was, there was a humongous famine which induced severe rationing in Mega-City One. The fat people didn't want to slim down and deliberately hoarded (and then ate) as much food as possible. The more militant groups (i.e. "The League of Fatties") went around hijacking shipments of food, etc. Eventually after this threatened to make the famine much worse, new laws forcing stricter rationing and confinement for those over a certain weight (200kg? I forget) so as to force them to stop being so gluttonous.

Now, what is insulting about this is the inferred stereotype that "they're all that way". But the comic was only about a number of the fatter militants (most of them ultrasize), and didn't have time to focus on those not-quite-so-fat who didn't act that way. Later on there _was_ a fat-positive story about a fat man, although I doubt everyone here would think it was fat-positive considering it was a then-illegal WG contest.

But the storyline has a happy ending. Months later the famine and rationing ended and people could be as fat as they wanted. Afterwards they would appear from time to time (there was even an SSBBW in the short-lived DC version of Dredd) and the worst thing anyone ever called them was "Fatty". Which was what they called themselves anyway.

----

As for size acceptance, I'm not saying we should be a bunch of militant FAs and BBWs and go around forcing our beliefs on others. But I want to be militant about the current fatphobic propaganda. We need some equally counteracting propaganda of our own.


----------



## Judge_Dre (Nov 24, 2007)

Zoom said:


> As for size acceptance, I'm not saying we should be a bunch of militant FAs and BBWs and go around forcing our beliefs on others. But I want to be militant about the current fatphobic propaganda. We need some equally counteracting propaganda of our own.



Thanks for explaining the comic. It was meant as a joke on militant groups and what would happen if fat people did indeed go militant. I guess the joke went over people's heads. I really didn't mean to offend anyone. Usually that kind of art kills on the Weight Board, but the topic here on the Main board was a little too serious for that kind of tomfoolery. Sorry :blush:

By the way, it should be obvious now, but that's where I got my profile name for Dimensions. It's a portmanteau of Judge Dredd and the shorten version of my name which is Dre (from Andres).


----------



## Tina (Nov 24, 2007)

I actually loved the comic book cover. Does that mean I believe us fat people should mistreat others or become militant in a negative way? Nope. But I'm diggin' the cover.


----------



## ksandru (Nov 24, 2007)

Chimpi said:


> Whether it's plane seats, movie theater seats, concert seating, walking down the street, furniture selection, any/all of the above and much more, *everyone* should have the option to be as comfortable as the person next to them. To be accepted by society is a marvelous thing. Something that is taken for granted by millions of people.
> As it is, I think the term Size Acceptance is fitting. I like the term, and I qualify as someone that supports it.
> 
> I like to think that those of us who love fat people will be the ones to celebrate the fat person.



I agree with your post, but let's not forget that there is alot of discrimination when it comes to getting a job, as well as salary & promotional opportunities. Studies have shown that fat women tend to be overlooked in hiring (esp. jobs that deal with the public), are paid less and are overlooked for promotions. I am fortunate to work for a company where size is not an issue (our diversity & community officer is a BBBW). And when it comes to life insurance, it's next to impossible. I just had a health screening, and everything was good - blood sugar, BP, everything, and because of the damned BMI, I was dropped from obtaining life insurance. Some companies are also looking into the possibility of either paying less or dropping altogether large-sized persons for medical insurance coverage. THESE are the issues the large-sized community and NAAFA should become more aggressive about.


----------



## goofy girl (Nov 24, 2007)

Judge_Dre said:


> Thanks for explaining the comic. It was meant as a joke on militant groups and what would happen if fat people did indeed go militant. I guess the joke went over people's heads. I really didn't mean to offend anyone. Usually that kind of art kills on the Weight Board, but the topic here on the Main board was a little too serious for that kind of tomfoolery. Sorry :blush:
> 
> By the way, it should be obvious now, but that's where I got my profile name for Dimensions. It's a portmanteau of Judge Dredd and the shorten version of my name which is Dre (from Andres).



I wasn't offended, it just pissed me off. I still don't understand the "joke", so I guess it did go over my head. I don't know about comic books or the characters or story lines...so maybe that's why I didn't "get" it, but that one frame without explanation did piss me off a bit.


----------



## Paul Delacroix (Nov 26, 2007)

goofy girl said:


> The term size acceptance has always somewhat bothered me. My interpretation of it is just as it says..to accept everyone no matter what their size...if someone is 650lbs they are just as much a person as a person who is 150. On the flip side, I also think that people who demand acceptance should reciprocate the same...meaning, that IF someone is 125lbs, get to know them first before labeling them a "skinny bitch". I think that the term size acceptance is important to remember that it should include ALL sizes and shapes.
> 
> I have no idea if this makes any sense..it's 6:00am and I haven't had coffee yet...so this might be one of those things that sound OK in my head and when I get home from work at 6 tonight I'll look at it and say "wtf??"



I don't like the term "size acceptance", either. It's too generic. For example, a person hearing the term for the first time might assume it refers to height instead of weight. Or they might assume it refers to both simultaneously.

A much better term would be "fat acceptance" or "fat advocacy". This also would have the side benefit of partly eclipsing the term "fat admirer" (another stinker) when reduced to its initials.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Nov 26, 2007)

Paul Delacroix said:


> I don't like the term "size acceptance", either. It's too generic. For example, a person hearing the term for the first time might assume it refers to height instead of weight. Or they might assume it refers to both simultaneously.
> 
> A much better term would be "fat acceptance" or "fat advocacy". This also would have the side benefit of partly eclipsing the term "fat admirer" (another stinker) when reduced to its initials.



everyone has a right to size acceptance, not just fat people. Obviously fat people have it harder and are more in need of rights and recognition. But I've seen numerous posts on here that draw parralels between size acceptance and gay rights. Gay civil rights organizations work to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation, not just 'if you're gay.' It's no more ok for a gay business owner or HR manager to decide to only hire gay people than it is to not hire gay people.

The term "skinny bitch" is no more ok than "fat bitch" and putting Nicole Ritchie on a tabloid and disecting her body and activities is no more ok than doing it to Kirstie Alley.


----------



## Paul Delacroix (Nov 26, 2007)

LoveBHMS said:


> everyone has a right to size acceptance, not just fat people. Obviously fat people have it harder and are more in need of rights and recognition. But I've seen numerous posts on here that draw parralels between size acceptance and gay rights. Gay civil rights organizations work to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation, not just 'if you're gay.' It's no more ok for a gay business owner or HR manager to decide to only hire gay people than it is to not hire gay people.
> 
> The term "skinny bitch" is no more ok than "fat bitch" and putting Nicole Ritchie on a tabloid and disecting her body and activities is no more ok than doing it to Kirstie Alley.



Nevertheless, what's the point? Should Size Acceptance start battling for Thin Rights or going to bat for little people? I believe we should be more focused.


----------



## Jon Blaze (Nov 26, 2007)

Paul Delacroix said:


> Nevertheless, what's the point? Should Size Acceptance start battling for Thin Rights or going to bat for little people? I believe we should be more focused.



Why shouldn't it? Fat Acceptance and Size Acceptance are inherently different, and the second movement is for everyone. Why be biased? 
Besides: There's people on our lines that *are* blatantly biased and bigoted towards thin people (Even those that defend them). If we suddenly didn't defend thin people, and those people got their say on things: How do you think it would make the movement look? 

We can still stay focused on fat people more, because they do face more discrimination, but we shouldn't leave thin people out in the cold, especially if one of our own is to blame.

By the way: That same argument was used by someone that opposed putting height and weight as part of Massachusetts bill that's supposed to be passed ("Next we're going to make laws for the color blind"). I mean no disrespect, but it has a bit of straw.


----------



## superodalisque (Nov 26, 2007)

Judge_Dre said:


> Thanks for explaining the comic. It was meant as a joke on militant groups and what would happen if fat people did indeed go militant. I guess the joke went over people's heads. I really didn't mean to offend anyone. Usually that kind of art kills on the Weight Board, but the topic here on the Main board was a little too serious for that kind of tomfoolery. Sorry :blush:
> 
> By the way, it should be obvious now, but that's where I got my profile name for Dimensions. It's a portmanteau of Judge Dredd and the shorten version of my name which is Dre (from Andres).



i got your joke. nope i think it went under our head lol. we had to quickly move aside to protect our knees. i have seen a bit of the judge dred comics. i know that it deals with extremes but i personally find them very juvenile typical and predictable. i think its fine that you enjoy that but its just not my taste. i see so many stereotypes of fat people around that they get tiresome and very few of them are that creative. it would be nice to see fat people looked up to as serious heros and serious sexual interests every once on a while--especially by people who say they love us.


----------



## superodalisque (Nov 26, 2007)

Paul Delacroix said:


> Nevertheless, what's the point? Should Size Acceptance start battling for Thin Rights or going to bat for little people? I believe we should be more focused.



i understand your point. but the truth is no group is an island either. i think large numbers can be very effective.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Nov 27, 2007)

Paul Delacroix said:


> Nevertheless, what's the point? Should Size Acceptance start battling for Thin Rights or going to bat for little people? I believe we should be more focused.



Nobody said anything about Thin Rights any more than the legislation against discrimination based on sexual orientation is about straight rights. Attributing any characteristics to a group rather than an individual is discrimination no matter what size or shape it comes in.


----------



## Paul Delacroix (Nov 27, 2007)

superodalisque said:


> i understand your point. but the truth is no group is an island either. i think large numbers can be very effective.



I agree wholeheartedly with being _nice_ to thin people, but our movement (such that it is) ought to be focused on fat acceptance. 

In my opinion, it's the lack of focus that has led to the decline in numbers in the movement (while the rest of the world gets fatter, our numbers get thinner).


----------



## Paul Delacroix (Nov 27, 2007)

LoveBHMS said:


> Nobody said anything about Thin Rights any more than the legislation against discrimination based on sexual orientation is about straight rights. Attributing any characteristics to a group rather than an individual is discrimination no matter what size or shape it comes in.



If size acceptance is about fighting for rights, and opposing discrimination, based on size, and "fat acceptance" is deemed too narrow-minded a term because _*"everyone has a right to size acceptance, not just fat people", *_as you said--then we should be fighting for Thin Rights by default. Also, I would suggest, Short Rights, since short people and dwarves face a great deal of discrimination.


----------



## Chimpi (Nov 27, 2007)

Jon Blaze said:


> Why shouldn't it? Fat Acceptance and Size Acceptance are inherently different, and the second movement is for everyone. Why be biased?



Why not strive for both?
Where we should fight (and fight hard) for our own rights, as fat human beings, we should also keep an open mind and fight for human equality as well. However, it will never be such the case. Human beings are inherently selfish, in global terms, and cannot survive as we know if everyone is treated the same. Social acceptance is not the political view of the world.

In more simplistic terms, "There's people on our lines that *are* blatantly biased and bigoted towards thin people (Even those that defend them)." - Jon Blaze 



k1009 said:


> I think the starting point for acceptance is really awareness. I know that a lot of thin people look at me and think I'm just a disgusting lump of overindulging fat (hey, I'm not disgusting!!!!) but what if they knew what it was like to be fat? What if they knew that fat isn't directly correlated to food intake and exercise? Would they treat me better then? Would they be willing to make certain concessions for me and other fat people?



You bring up an excellent point. Where I see it very difficult to not understand what it would be like for a fat person, that is coming from a fat guy that has been fat for most of his life, and who views it from a very open viewpoint. It is possible that many people just believe the cookie cutter statements that fat people are fat because they constantly eat and never exercise. It's incredible when you view videos (of any kind; anywhere) of a lot of people. It is incredible when you realize there are _so many more_ people in this country (and in this world) than you could ever imagine. It is scary that so many of them can be blind, arrogant, ignorant, violent, bigoted, and prejudiced [towards fat people].
:doh:


----------



## liz (di-va) (Nov 27, 2007)

Paul Delacroix said:


> I agree wholeheartedly with being _nice_ to thin people, but our movement (such that it is) ought to be focused on fat acceptance.
> In my opinion, it's the lack of focus that has led to the decline in numbers in the movement (while the rest of the world gets fatter, our numbers get thinner).



That's an interestin' point--


----------



## southernfa (Nov 27, 2007)

Chimpi said:


> For example, the plane seating issue. We should not have to pay double the price just to fly somewhere (anywhere). There should be seating on the plane to accommodate all sizes of people, and not just lump all seats together so that the airline can make extra cash.



Over the years, the airline seat issue has come up regularly on these boards and yet the fundamental issues remain just the same. It's not really about rights; it's about physics, statistics and economics.
First point: airlines are not gold-mines. It is a tough business with very high entry costs and narrow margins. If you don't know what you are doing and don't have a fair dollop of luck, you don't survive.
Second point: Air travel works on simple physics; depending on the plane, it takes X pounds of fuel to carry X pounds of cargo or passenger. Every single pound counts once you are airborne. If you weigh twice as much as your neighbour in the next seat; the plane has to carry that much more fuel. 
Third point: Statistics. The airlines and plane makers know that X % of the flying population can fit into the seats they provide. They also know that X % of the population will not exceed a given weight. They also take into account baggage. That is why you pay a king's ransom for excess baggage. It is outside what they allowed for.
Fourth point: Economics. Airlines also know that the vast bulk of their sales are price-sensitive. They HAVE to be competitive. That is why they cheese-pare at every opportunity and why the seats are so small (there is a well-known anecdote about United saving $75,000/year by trimming two olives from every meal).

For someone of size, a gorgeous BBW for instance, to come along and present with a weight in excess of their expectation immediately makes the ticket a loss-maker, all things being equal. For that person, to then necessitate that the adjacent seat be empty, makes the deal uneconomic for the airline.

For people of size to expect that seats should be larger and prices adjusted to be "fairer" is essentially asking the rest of the flying public to subsidise them. 

What are the options?
Lobby the airlines? Don't fancy your chances, to them you are not desirable business anyhow.
Activism/Change public opinion. Might work, but it is a lot of effort.
Statistics and Patience. As we all know, the western public is fattening up at quite a rate. This will eventually force a change as more and more of the flying public have a problem with undersize seats (and as a distinctly average size person I already have a problem with them) and irrespective of competitive price pressures, airlines have to enlarge seating to maintain market share.

It's already happened at least once before. About 15-20 years ago, the Tongan national airline was forced to replace the seating in their fleet ( a couple of 737s... ) to better accommodate the size of their passengers. The prices went up to compensate for the reduced number of seats but everyone paid.


----------



## goofy girl (Nov 27, 2007)

LoveBHMS said:


> everyone has a right to size acceptance, not just fat people. Obviously fat people have it harder and are more in need of rights and recognition. But I've seen numerous posts on here that draw parralels between size acceptance and gay rights. Gay civil rights organizations work to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation, not just 'if you're gay.' It's no more ok for a gay business owner or HR manager to decide to only hire gay people than it is to not hire gay people.
> 
> The term "skinny bitch" is no more ok than "fat bitch" and putting Nicole Ritchie on a tabloid and disecting her body and activities is no more ok than doing it to Kirstie Alley.



You must be in my head..but you say my thoughts better than I do. :huh:


----------



## southernfa (Nov 27, 2007)

southernfa said:


> It's already happened at least once before. About 15-20 years ago, the Tongan national airline was forced to replace the seating in their fleet ( a couple of 737s... ) to better accommodate the size of their passengers. The prices went up to compensate for the reduced number of seats but everyone paid.



Actually, what I should have said is that even Air Tonga didn't do it for the sake of their passengers but rather that a full-load was getting close to exceeding the planes' rated lift-off weight. I'm sure there is a fantasy in there for someone!


----------



## k1009 (Nov 27, 2007)

southernfa said:


> Over the years, the airline seat issue has come up regularly on these boards and yet the fundamental issues remain just the same. It's not really about rights; it's about physics, statistics and economics.
> First point: airlines are not gold-mines. It is a tough business with very high entry costs and narrow margins. If you don't know what you are doing and don't have a fair dollop of luck, you don't survive.
> Second point: Air travel works on simple physics; depending on the plane, it takes X pounds of fuel to carry X pounds of cargo or passenger. Every single pound counts once you are airborne. If you weigh twice as much as your neighbour in the next seat; the plane has to carry that much more fuel.
> Third point: Statistics. The airlines and plane makers know that X % of the flying population can fit into the seats they provide. They also know that X % of the population will not exceed a given weight. They also take into account baggage. That is why you pay a king's ransom for excess baggage. It is outside what they allowed for.
> ...



That's one of the issues I was alluding to on the previous page. I spring for a business class seat when I travel now (you'd be suprised how cheap they are if you shop around and fly with, ah... exotic airlines). I could fit into an economy seat if I wanted to but I have rather long legs and my bum pushes those legs out even further so after an hour or so knee pain hits. 

I've long accepted that airlines can't accomodate me. It's not that I don't want them to, but how can we legislate worldwide? If you make your national carrier comply with seating regulations you make it uncompetitive. If you say to international airlines that they have to comply with those regulations to land in your airports I can foresee all sorts of long, costly lawsuits that make fat people out to be the baddies. What I'd love to see is airlines taking the initiative, saying that a person with hips over a certain size is entitled to a second seat at, say 30% of the price as long as there are other empty seats on the plane. You know what that means? Flying at non peak periods, the airline gets bums on seats, the weight of the person flying will be offset by that of children or thin people on board, there's a little more dignity for larger people while travelling. It's a policy that doesn't require airlines to retrofit their planes which keeps costs down, important when the airline answers to its shareholders.

What to do about we poor souls with long legs? That's harder. We're doomed.


----------



## southernfa (Nov 27, 2007)

Discounted second seat. Now that's an interesting idea. As it happens, I know someone who works for one of the larger ticketing software companies. I might try working it into the conversation some day.

People with long legs? Oh that's completely different, no sympathy at all (speaking as one with 'compact undercarriage').


----------



## Jon Blaze (Nov 27, 2007)

southernfa said:


> Discounted second seat. Now that's an interesting idea. As it happens, I know someone who works for one of the larger ticketing software companies. I might try working it into the conversation some day.
> 
> People with long legs? Oh that's completely different, no sympathy at all (speaking as one with 'compact undercarriage').



I've always considered that as well. I think paying full price is pushing it, especially when it's in upwards of 500 dollars or more.


----------



## k1009 (Nov 27, 2007)

southernfa said:


> Discounted second seat. Now that's an interesting idea. As it happens, I know someone who works for one of the larger ticketing software companies. I might try working it into the conversation some day.
> 
> People with long legs? Oh that's completely different, no sympathy at all (speaking as one with 'compact undercarriage').



I would _love_ that. I think a lot of fat people are unsure of how to purchase a second seat, or how to do it with the least fuss possible so they just cram themselves into a single economy and they and their seatmates have a miserable journey. I don't travel as often as I'd like to because I fly business class and I'm not able to take advantage of discount airlines. It doesn't address the issues of my legs, but the knee pain would be more bearable if I wasn't wedged so tightly into my seat. More room to move and splay the legs out would mean far less knee pain. 

In case anyone's interested, the most fat friendly airline I've found so far is Emirates. I first took a flight with them at ~100kg, not fat enough to make it uncomfortable, but just fat enough that I welcomed the additional table and space to spread out. I've taken a few flights with them now, at each check in, not one word was said to me about my weight and even if the plane was otherwise full I was next to an empty seat. Either they have a company policy to treat fatties well or I'm I've lucked out with super nice checkin staff. If I ever lose enough weight to make economy a knee friendly choice I'll be flying with them.


----------



## Judge_Dre (Nov 28, 2007)

southernfa said:


> It's already happened at least once before. About 15-20 years ago, the Tongan national airline was forced to replace the seating in their fleet ( a couple of 737s... ) to better accommodate the size of their passengers. The prices went up to compensate for the reduced number of seats but everyone paid.



That's probably because their king at the time, T&#257;ufa&#699;&#257;hau Tupou IV was the Guinness World Record heaviest monarch at 462 lbs. If you are fat king in one of the few countries were monarchs still have real authority, then you could be damn sure that the airline will have extra-wide seats!


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Nov 28, 2007)

Size acceptance or fat acceptance! The important part is that we focus on stop discrimination without reversing it, or creating new ones! 

I think it would be a empty victory, if we end fat acceptance, but create thin discrimination in the process.


----------



## goofy girl (Nov 29, 2007)

Paul Delacroix said:


> Nevertheless, what's the point? Should Size Acceptance start battling for Thin Rights or going to bat for little people? I believe we should be more focused.



"acceptance" and "rights" are not necessarily the same thing.


----------



## stan_der_man (Nov 29, 2007)

I prefer the term "fat acceptance" over "size acceptance" simply because "size acceptance" is a bit more vague and include all sorts of other things like short people, tall people or whatever else "size" may encompass. Most of the other "size" issues would probably be accommodated for under ADA laws anyway, where as fat people aren't necessarily protected by those laws.

As far as access to planes and public transportation... I don't think it's so much a matter of "accommodating" for fat people, its a basic matter of a person having a right to travel no matter what size they are. If you are required to purchase two seats to fly on a plane because you happen to take up two seats, you are being denied your right to free travel, and access to public spaces because it will be much more expensive for you to do so. In my opinion, the way NYC issues citations to people for taking up 2 seats in the subway completely violates a person's right to free travel. (I don't know if they still do that, I read about it a while back...) We all legally have a right to free travel in the U.S., period. I don't think it's unreasonable to require airlines (and public transportation in general) to have X number (or percent) of seats large enough for a fat person. Having a person take up two seats if they really need to is not accommodation, it's reasonable necessity for a person to be able to function in our world and travel freely.

Just my 2¢...


Stan


----------



## southernfa (Nov 30, 2007)

Judge_Dre said:


> That's probably because their king at the time, T&#257;ufa&#699;&#257;hau Tupou IV was the Guinness World Record heaviest monarch at 462 lbs. If you are fat king in one of the few countries were monarchs still have real authority, then you could be damn sure that the airline will have extra-wide seats!



Yes, good old King Tupou. He was a big boy. Tall too. Went on a weight-reduction/fitness campaign late in life and made it a royal example to his people. There wasn't too much take up by the commoners.

His successor, the clown prince, wears a monocle and ceremonial sword and rides around the kingdom in a royal London taxi (easier to get in and out with the sword, don't y'know). Tragic really, he will bring democracy to the Kingdom whether he intends to or not.


----------



## k1009 (Nov 30, 2007)

fa_man_stan said:


> As far as access to planes and public transportation... I don't think it's so much a matter of "accommodating" for fat people, its a basic matter of a person having a right to travel no matter what size they are. If you are required to purchase two seats to fly on a plane because you happen to take up two seats, you are being denied your right to free travel, and access to public spaces because it will be much more expensive for you to do so. In my opinion, the way NYC issues citations to people for taking up 2 seats in the subway completely violates a person's right to free travel. (I don't know if they still do that, I read about it a while back...) We all legally have a right to free travel in the U.S., period. I don't think it's unreasonable to require airlines (and public transportation in general) to have X number (or percent) of seats large enough for a fat person. Having a person take up two seats if they really need to is not accommodation, it's reasonable necessity for a person to be able to function in our world and travel freely.



One of the problems I have with accomodation for all sizes at the same price when flying is that it will make the general public resent fat people even more. Think about it, if you're joe average, 5'11, 200 pounds, you've a bit of a gut but nothing more, flying is not going to be comfortable for anything more than a few hours. You know you could fly more comfortable by upgrading but that $$$ are more than you can afford. A fat person comes along, they get a larger seat for the same price you've paid, you're angry. The reaction to these sorts of concessions would really set back size acceptance. 

Another consideration is that unlike a train, an airline's space is finite. You can't just tack on another few seats at the back like you could with train carriages. And as southerfa said, airlines calculate passenger weight when taking into account the cost of fuel. Retrofitting planes is expensive, reconfiguring your booking software is expensive, forgoing revenue is obviously expensive. Making planes fat friendly is an expensive endeavour. There are some things we have to accept that we cannot change without doing damage to ourselves at the same time. It's pretty obvious that no board, no shareholders would vote to make plane seats larger, or even to make a few seats larger (the public backlash could hurt the bottom line). If American airlines had to do that, they'd be uncompetitive in the global market, and can you really see other countries forcing their airlines to do so? I can't imagine any European airline, bar BA would consider it and Asian airlines would laugh you out of the country for suggesting it.

Fat acceptance hurts itself by pushing this line instead of seeking to compromise. We accept that we need to pay more for clothes, especially underwear, that we can't have tinny little cars ferrying us around, we even at some point may need to purchase sturdier toilets to accomodate us. Why is it that we target airlines like this?


----------



## southernfa (Nov 30, 2007)

fa_man_stan said:


> If you are required to purchase two seats to fly on a plane because you happen to take up two seats, you are being denied your right to free travel, and access to public spaces because it will be much more expensive for you to do so.



You got me thinking there, Stan. That's the first time I've ever heard anyone suggest that air-travel is public transport. I'd be delighted to learn otherwise, but as far as I am aware; no airlines are operated by public utilities or local government and although many national governments have controlling interests in national airlines; they still tend to run them as for-profit corporations, competing in the private not public transport sector.

Another thing which you made me wonder about is 'free' travel (maybe it is different in the US). Down here, a citizen has a right to free right-of-way on public land ie he is allowed to travel on roads without let or hindrance. But there is no established right to free passage; he still has to pay for the locomotion or provide his own. If he can't afford to get from A to B that is not held to be the taxpayers problem.


----------



## stan_der_man (Nov 30, 2007)

k1009 said:


> One of the problems I have with accomodation for all sizes at the same price when flying is that it will make the general public resent fat people even more.
> ...


This point is difficult to gauge... You may very well be correct k1009, but probably no more resentful than "average" people in general are towards fat people they encounter on a daily basis. "Average" people are in close quarters to fat people everyday in subways, crowded stores, sitting next to them in Department of Motor Vehicle waiting rooms, you name it.



> Another consideration is that unlike a train, an airline's space is finite. You can't just tack on another few seats at the back like you could with train carriages. And as southerfa said, airlines calculate passenger weight when taking into account the cost of fuel.
> ...


 I agree with you here in principle. You are correct, simple physics dictates that planes only have so much room in them and only so much carrying capacity. We are already seeing that airlines have had to increase their calculations of average passenger weight. We don't live in a 150 lb average weight world anymore. I don't personally know the numbers, what are the percentages of people that wouldn't fit into a single coach seat... 1 in 10? My feeling is that the percentage isn't that high... and despite the low profit margins airlines have now-a-days, the cost of "giving away" a free seat here and there wouldn't make an airline go bankrupt.



> If American airlines had to do that, they'd be uncompetitive in the global market, and can you really see other countries forcing their airlines to do so? I can't imagine any European airline, bar BA would consider it and Asian airlines would laugh you out of the country for suggesting it.
> ...


This statement I believe is false. Any airline operating within the U.S. or leaving from U.S. ports would be required to abide by American law regardless of the national origin of the airline. If there was some sort of (what I'd call a) "right to travel" regulation, American based airlines wouldn't be put at any disadvantage because within the U.S. all airlines have to abide by U.S. law. Outside of the U.S. all airlines don't have to abide by U.S. law, including American based airlines (if U.S. law is written as such...) I don't see how American based airlines would be put at a disadvantage by this. I'm not necessarily suggesting modifications to existing airplanes, just reserving a few extra seats for passangers that absolutely don't fit into a single seat. No airline would be put at a disadvantage because all airlines operating within the jurisdiction of the U.S. (or any other country with such laws) would be held to the same standard. Would a "right to travel" law effect airlines profits? Clearly it would, but I don't think significantly, and rest assured they will pass on the cost. Has accommodating for disabled people drastically increased airline ticket prices? Not that I know of.

One of the biggest problem with airlines charging fat people for an extra seat is that it seems to be applied arbitrarily. At very least there should be some sort of standard as to when a person needs to purchase an additional seat.





> Fat acceptance hurts itself by pushing this line instead of seeking to compromise.


I also agree with you that pushing the limits of anything only creates resentment and an eventual backlash... but I don't see where people on the "other side" of this issue have themselves offered any sort of compromise solution.


----------



## stan_der_man (Nov 30, 2007)

southernfa said:


> You got me thinking there, Stan. That's the first time I've ever heard anyone suggest that air-travel is public transport. I'd be delighted to learn otherwise, but as far as I am aware; no airlines are operated by public utilities or local government and although many national governments have controlling interests in national airlines; they still tend to run them as for-profit corporations, competing in the private not public transport sector.
> ...


From what I understand in the U.S., any form of transportation that is offered to the public (where anybody is able to purchase a ticket and go for a ride...) whether privately or publically operated is considered "public transportation", or at least subject to ADA regulations. Perhaps I'm not using the correct terms. For example Southwest Airlines is required to accommodate disabled passangers, but a private corporate jet (not offered to the public) is not required to do so. Both are privately owned.



> Another thing which you made me wonder about is 'free' travel (maybe it is different in the US). Down here, a citizen has a right to free right-of-way on public land ie he is allowed to travel on roads without let or hindrance. But there is no established right to free passage; he still has to pay for the locomotion or provide his own. If he can't afford to get from A to B that is not held to be the taxpayers problem.


I'm definitely pushing the limits as to what I'm calling our right to travel within the U.S., I'll admit that. We don't really have a "right to travel" under the U.S. constitution, but a "right to travel" is generally established:

http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#travel



> in Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right,


Is charging you more to travel just because you are fat and taking up more than your fair share of space "interference" with your ability to travel? Private entities are also included here. I think it is.

Remember back during the "Dust Bowl" era when they were turning "Okies" back at the California border?

Fat people are inconveniencing others by taking up more than their fair share of space so is it proper to have them pay more for transportation? Should a disabled person pay more for transportation? As a whole they cost us all more to accommodate. Do you (as a presumably "normal" person) want to be squashed up against a wheel chair? Why should additional storage space be created for wheel chairs? Airplanes only have so much space on them. Disabled people should have to pay for their additional needs. If that were the case, fewer disabled people would be able to travel. That's how it was in the past. Why is a disabled person more special than a fat person? (Or a fat person any less special than a disabled person?)


----------



## k1009 (Nov 30, 2007)

I don't think airlines are going to rush to compromise, and since they're only being met with demands for extra seats, why would they? They've got the law and public opinion on their side. If we continue to make unreasonable demands they're not going to come to the table with anything and will probably come up with more and more draconian policies just to show us who's in control. 

As far as American airlines being at a disadvantage if pro size laws are enacted there, consider that airlines have varied routes, and that America is not the only destination for those who fly. International airlines may, with careful planning, have to retrofit only a small number of their fleet. They only have to absorb the cost for flights into and out of the US. American airlines on the other hand, have to overhaul all their flights, they have to take a financial hit on every single route. They either have to cut profits or increase ticket sales. I doubt any airline could afford to deal with such losses, or that the board would allow it. International airlines might only have to raise their fares by a small amount or not at all, so they have an advantage over local carriers. 

Another consideration is who exactly can such laws accomodate? Someone who carries all their weight in their belly might not have issues fitting their hips into an economy seat but may not be able to fit comfortably unless space in front of them is extended. Do we make seats for all sorts of body shapes? Who gets these seats? I've posted earlier about my problems with airline travel, how difficult it is at a relatively small size because of my height to travel long haul. Do I get one of the fat friendly seats designed for people with large bellies? How many seats need to be provided?

I don't think the average person hates fat people that much. We cop a lot of flack for being large and the media despises us, but I don't think we're really that hated except by a few truly horrible people. One sure way to make us targets is to insist on "luxuries" at the expense of someone else. As long as we get something that another person doesn't, we'll be hated. It's all that keeping up with the joneses stuff, we can't bear to know that our neighbour has something we don't. If we think they've acquired it unfairly then we're really bitter, the late 80s/early 90s backlash against "welfare mums" comes to mind here.

I just can't see airlines or legislators giving in any time soon. If we ask for small concessions forward thinking airlines might see value in agreeing to them, but if we insist on threatning their profits they'll continue to make flying a humiliating experience and/or very expensive experience for some of us.


----------



## k1009 (Nov 30, 2007)

fa_man_stan said:


> Fat people are inconveniencing others by taking up more than their fair share of space so is it proper to have them pay more for transportation? Should a disabled person pay more for transportation? As a whole they cost us all more to accommodate. Do you (as a presumably "normal" person) want to be squashed up against a wheel chair? Why should additional storage space be created for wheel chairs? Airplanes only have so much space on them. Disabled people should have to pay for their additional needs. If that were the case, fewer disabled people would be able to travel. That's how it was in the past. Why is a disabled person more special than a fat person? (Or a fat person any less special than a disabled person?)



Interesting comparison, but how many disabled people do you see flying? I think that's what it comes down too, it's cost effective to provide the extra resources for those with disabilities. Levels of disability vary between people, and while one person may use a regular wheelchair that weighs very little, only requiring extra help at ground level and a bit more attention on the plane, a few may use a heavy electric wheelchair or require other bulky medical equipment to travel. Generalising for a moment, a person who has a lot of medical equipment probably isn't going to fly, and the few that do? Small costs, these can be absorbed by the airline. I think it comes down to numbers and dollars. We fatties are simply too numerous.


----------



## stan_der_man (Nov 30, 2007)

k1009 said:


> Interesting comparison, but how many disabled people do you see flying? I think that's what it comes down too, it's cost effective to provide the extra resources for those with disabilities. Levels of disability vary between people, and while one person may use a regular wheelchair that weighs very little, only requiring extra help at ground level and a bit more attention on the plane, a few may use a heavy electric wheelchair or require other bulky medical equipment to travel. Generalising for a moment, a person who has a lot of medical equipment probably isn't going to fly, and the few that do? Small costs, these can be absorbed by the airline. I think it comes down to numbers and dollars. We fatties are simply too numerous.


On typical flights that I've been on in the U.S. and Canada, I think I could safely say there are at least 1 or two disabled people on each flight. It would be interesting to have some statistics as to how many fat people (who truly require more than one seat) there are who would flying if they were accommodated the same way disabled people are. I honestly don't think the numbers are that much greater than the percentage of disabled. Of course that would increase the overall number of people accommodated and reduce the potential number of passangers an airline could potentially receive income from. Clearly that's something the airlines would not be in favour of.


----------



## k1009 (Nov 30, 2007)

fa_man_stan said:


> On typical flights that I've been on in the U.S. and Canada, I think I could safely say there are at least 1 or two disabled people on each flight. It would be interesting to have some statistics as to how many fat people (who truly require more than one seat) there are who would flying if they were accommodated the same way disabled people are. I honestly don't think the numbers are that much greater than the percentage of disabled. Of course that would increase the overall number of people accommodated and reduce the potential number of passangers an airline could potentially receive income from. Clearly that's something the airlines would not be in favour of.



I've gotta say, that's not a number I was expecting. I rarely see disabled people when I fly, although I haven't flown in the US or Canada. Interesting.

This is going to sound selfish, but I'm a selfish person. If the cost of my airline ticket goes up because of fat friendly seating, then I want in. I'm a tall girl at 130ish (kilos), I wear a US size 22 on the bottom, but I still want the fat seating. If I feel this way about fat seating, what makes you think tall people won't want seating to accomodate their height? My family are tall, some closer to seven feet, and they have a miserable time when flying economy. If they have to subsidise fat people why shouldn't they get good seats? And after the tall people will come those with arthritis and other conditions which don't fall under the disability category but which can be affected by cramped airline seating.

I think that the number of fat people flying would rise if provisions were brought into place to make their flying more comfortable and cheaper so the numbers flying now wouldn't have much of a bearing on profit loss should the law require size friendly seating.


----------



## stefanie (Nov 30, 2007)

k1009 said:


> One of the problems I have with accomodation for all sizes at the same price when flying is that it will make the general public resent fat people even more



It's a tough question. I recall recently reading about the Air France lawsuit (sorry, no link - a 400 or so lb. guy was made to buy an extra seat on an Air France plane originating in Delhi, India.) The court ruled in favor of the passenger, because the air carrier had a contractual agreement with the passengers to move *people*, not *kilos.* This is French law, and there are probably other things with Air France that don't apply to US carriers. Even so, it's an interesting point. Because if it's a matter of mass (rather than actual physical size), then 2 year olds should be charged less (i.e. they have fewer kilos.)

To me, the problem is that airline seats in general are too small. My DH was telling me that Air India's seats are so small, that an "average" sized American cannot fit in them. They are way smaller than American carriers'. So maybe the key is for American carriers to simply get larger seats. That will drive the cost up for others - yes, for others who are small (or who bring small children, yet still have to pay the regular fare.) OTOH, it might encourage more large people to fly. As you said, "We fatties are too numerous." If seats were 20% larger, that might mean 20% less seats, and some corresponding rise in fares. But that makes more sense than requiring bigger people to buy *two* seats, when maybe 20-25% more room is all they need, not 100% more room. It spreads the cost around to everyone. Just a thought, anyway.


----------



## southernfa (Nov 30, 2007)

stefanie said:


> Because if it's a matter of mass (rather than actual physical size), then 2 year olds should be charged less (i.e. they have fewer kilos.)



Which is of course why many routes have child rates and family rates. The airlines know that on average that a child weighs less. Charging per weight per child would create all sorts of social and family issues. Hopefully nobody will ever go down that path.


----------

