# NAAFA is thinking of changing its name



## Russell Williams (Jun 29, 2013)

I read where some people are advising NAAFA to change its name. I posted the following comment on the NAAFA website.

On the subject of name change.

Even if the organization should change its name to something more socially acceptable such as, "The National Association Fighting the Disease of Obesity," in time the sponsors will figure out exactly what the organization is about. If they do due diligence they're going to look on the webpage before they commit to being sponsors and it will be relatively difficult to change the NAAFA webpage in such a way as to make it sound like it's fighting, "the Disease of Obesity".

By and large we are fat people or people who love and admire fat people who are fighting for equality for all.


----------



## Webmaster (Jun 30, 2013)

I was on the board when NAAFA initially changed its name from National Association to Aid Fat Americans to National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance. The reason for that change was that many objected to the word "aid" which insinuated assistance rather than self-acceptance, and that the organization was not limited to Americans.

There were quite a few suggestions for a new name. For a variety of reasons it was decided that any new name should have the same acronym. That was limiting and precluded any name that included Size Acceptance, which I favored. To the best of my recollection, the late Donna Marie Ryan eventually came up with the name the group still carries today.


----------



## Yakatori (Jun 30, 2013)

"The generation after a revolution inherits all of its problems and none of its passion."

I don't know if he was the original source, but, from time to time, it pops up in my head like it was just yesterday that I'd heard it for the very first time.


----------



## Morganer (Jul 1, 2013)

Webmaster said:


> I was on the board when NAAFA initially changed its name from National Association to Aid Fat Americans to National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance. The reason for that change was that many objected to the word "aid" which insinuated assistance rather than self-acceptance, and that the organization was not limited to Americans.
> 
> There were quite a few suggestions for a new name. For a variety of reasons it was decided that any new name should have the same acronym. That was limiting and precluded any name that included Size Acceptance, which I favored. To the best of my recollection, the late Donna Marie Ryan eventually came up with the name the group still carries today.



I know one of this year's attendees. Should be a great event!

Too bad more people don't go.


----------



## superodalisque (Jul 1, 2013)

posted by me elsewhere:

or maybe more of a movement toward full SA as in human rights for everyone that anyone can get behind no matter their size. i think the fat movement has ghettoized itself by excluding others and making enemies out of others unnecessarily. i think it's time we broke this thing open to other people and learned to work together and support each other. 

i think the LGBT community has been so successful because it has always supported other causes like feminism and racial civil rights etc... people have appreciated that and have learned acceptance by being in close proximity, meeting and knowing them and having much wanted support from that community. it is time the fat community did that as well. we're cloistered and centered on our own navels so much at times that we sometimes even actively discriminate against others and among ourselves. we need to change that or the whole thing will get cannibalized which has already happened to a certain extent with all of the private little fiefdoms where everyone has to think and believe the same.

there will be plenty of radical groups left but we do need at least one group that does outreach to other communities and are politically serious in ways where we can even involve our families and network with people who are different.


----------



## musicman (Jul 2, 2013)

Russell Williams said:


> I read where some people are advising NAAFA to change its name. I posted the following comment on the NAAFA website.
> 
> On the subject of name change.
> 
> ...




I assume they want to remove the word "fat" to avoid offending some squeamish corporation that may or may not throw them a few thousand dollars as a tax write-off. I sincerely hope NAAFA will resist this. If a corporation would only support a re-branded "non-fat" NAAFA, then that's NOT the kind of support NAAFA wants. "Corporate support" always comes with strings attached. If a corporation can get NAAFA to change its name, it can even more easily get it to change its policies. What would NAAFA change if the American Obesity Association (a WLS lobbying group) suddenly offered them a million dollars? People should remember that "corporate support" is what produces all of those bogus "scientific studies" we often discuss on these boards.

Sadly, the enemies of fat people are infinitely better organized and funded now than they were when NAAFA was founded in 1969. Through its massive advertising budgets, the weight loss industry controls 99% of the media. Through campaign contributions, it controls most of Congress and the White House, and it has now bought off the AMA. There is no way that NAAFA can hope to compete against this financially, regardless of how much "corporate support" they can get by changing their name.

If the word "fat" disturbs some people, then it is a word with power, and NAAFA should use it. In my opinion, NAAFA (and the entire movement) should be using that word as often as possible. We need to reclaim it as a neutral adjective, and stop people from automatically using it as a negative. If we can't at least try to do that, we should just give up.

Even if we can't totally reclaim the word "fat", using it will make a few people start to think: "Gee, you mean there are actually fat people who don't mind being called "fat"? Wow, I never hear about that in the mainstream media. Maybe all those diet commercials aren't really telling me the gospel truth about life..." Getting people to think for themselves is the only real power that we can exert, given the huge financial disparity between us and the diet industry.

And finally, I thought the primary message of NAAFA to fat people was that fat is OK, you don't have to put your life on hold until you lose weight, etc. What kind of message would it send to fat people, if NAAFA was suddenly ashamed to use the word "fat"? They should think long and hard before making a change like this.


----------



## HereticFA (Jul 2, 2013)

Russell Williams said:


> I read where some people are advising NAAFA to change its name. I posted the following comment on the NAAFA website.
> 
> On the subject of name change.
> 
> ...


Or maybe OOFI - Obesity Organization Fighting Irrelevancy? No amount of rearranging the deck chairs or their corporate acronym will fix what's fundamentally wrong with NAAFA. It's doubtful they will ever regain the energy and inertia they enjoyed in the '80s and '90s and that is a shame.

If you are stating a name they are honestly considering and not just one you quickly created (like I did for this post), that hints at how much further they have descended in their group think. That shows they now consider it preferable to misrepresent the organization just to get money. It won't take long for that info to make it around the decision makers in society. I'd wager that will make the entire issue of fat acceptance _paradigm non grata_ in fairly short order.


----------



## HereticFA (Jul 2, 2013)

superodalisque said:


> posted by me elsewhere:
> 
> or maybe more of a movement toward full SA as in human rights for everyone that anyone can get behind no matter their size. i think the fat movement has ghettoized itself by excluding others and making enemies out of others unnecessarily. i think it's time we broke this thing open to other people and learned to work together and support each other.


NAAFA did adopt a position fully supporting NOW and other human rights organizations in the 90's. All that did was take up time in NAAFA for those issues and reduced the time spent on fat acceptance issues. At the time NOW adopted a plank in their platform supporting fat acceptance as a means to combat back door discrimination against women. Five years later it was gone from NOW but the Feminist SIG was still going strong in NAAFA. 

NAAFA didn't ghettoize themselves, they diluted themselves to irrevelancy with all the non fat related SIGs pushing agendas from other organizations while not having a sufficiently strong fat acceptance message themselves. It looks like NAAFA is now transitioning into the phase where thay are trying to become a money machine racket.


----------



## moore2me (Jul 5, 2013)

Why not come up with a totally new name that fits today's modern audiences and at the same time sizzles (with sex, violence, and is a draw to new members?) A few totally new names . . . . 

Planet Earth Humans Using Throwing Stars Against Zombies

We're Half the World - Will You Join Us?

Junk in Trunk and Cup Holders + Dangerous Curves

The Order of Hungry Flying Dragons - Be Very Kind to Owner

Mess With One, Mess With All.


----------



## mango (Jul 6, 2013)

*F.W.A.


*


----------



## Marlayna (Jul 6, 2013)

NAAFA was a great group from my perspective. I have a question, was there ever a time when the last A stood for Awareness and not Acceptance?
Also, I remember the "aid" part, and that we really weren't looking for aid, but wasn't it around the time the AIDS epidemic started, and the word was kind of tainted? 
There used to be a popular Aydes Diet Candy that fell out of favor, which was possibly due to the name. Not that the stuff really worked anyway, but the fudge ones didn't taste too bad.

Anyway, how about a silent K?.... KNAAFA.
The K could stand for Kindness.


----------



## blubrluvr (Jul 14, 2013)

mango said:


> *F.W.A.
> 
> 
> *



Fatties With Attitude?


----------



## superodalisque (Jul 15, 2013)

HereticFA said:


> NAAFA did adopt a position fully supporting NOW and other human rights organizations in the 90's. All that did was take up time in NAAFA for those issues and reduced the time spent on fat acceptance issues. At the time NOW adopted a plank in their platform supporting fat acceptance as a means to combat back door discrimination against women. Five years later it was gone from NOW but the Feminist SIG was still going strong in NAAFA.
> 
> NAAFA didn't ghettoize themselves, they diluted themselves to irrevelancy with all the non fat related SIGs pushing agendas from other organizations while not having a sufficiently strong fat acceptance message themselves. It looks like NAAFA is now transitioning into the phase where thay are trying to become a money machine racket.



NOW did not have a good reputation for being inclusive itself. it left the gay community that had made it so dynamic and it also backed off in it's support of he black community. they also sought to demonize other women who were empathetic but had different political interests like the radical portions of the fat community often do. they are a prime example of exactly why it's important to keep or make your support system diverse. meanwhile the gay and lesbian community has opened it doors to a lot of people and this is why even though black people are VERY conservative they've even finally broken open to support the gay community. the gay community has a whole lot more wins behind it because it is a lot more positive and inclusive. they invite everyone who wants to support them. in the last thirteen years i've been around i've yet to see any people who were allowed who didn't have a directly fat interest. so not only are we not educating people on the level we should we also are not including people who are sympathetic to our cause very much.


----------



## superodalisque (Jul 15, 2013)

i should have said the LGBT community. i don't want to leave anyone out especially when it comes to all of the wonderful support i've always gotten from them for anything that i've been involved in that had something to do with human rights. love you all :kiss2:


----------



## wrestlingguy (Jul 27, 2013)

For anyone interested, the organization has a poll asking people to vote on whether they should undergo a name change.
I voted against, as I feel that changing the name undermines the mission of the organization, since it succumbs to the pressure of removing the word "fat", which others feel carries a social stigma.
Anyway, cast your vote here.
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s_thankyou.aspx?sm=susfDgZksJz%2b%2bi%2fBc1aLKG7zFvBdn0JXzLNl8v6T1KQ%3d


----------



## Blackjack (Jul 27, 2013)

NAAFA: Promoting fat acceptance by further stigmatizing the word "fat".

Is there any wonder they're losing any relevance they might've had?


----------



## superodalisque (Jul 27, 2013)

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.


----------



## musicman (Jul 28, 2013)

wrestlingguy said:


> For anyone interested, the organization has a poll asking people to vote on whether they should undergo a name change.
> I voted against, as I feel that changing the name undermines the mission of the organization, since it succumbs to the pressure of removing the word "fat", which others feel carries a social stigma.
> Anyway, cast your vote here.
> https://www.surveymonkey.com/s_thankyou.aspx?sm=susfDgZksJz%2b%2bi%2fBc1aLKG7zFvBdn0JXzLNl8v6T1KQ%3d




Thanks, Wrestlingguy, for posting that link. It's not a voting link, but the survey results are very interesting (93% opposed to name change). On that page, there is also a link to an earlier article about the name change, written by some trade group for associations. It's a very revealing article. Here's the link:

http://associationsnow.com/2013/06/whats-in-an-association-name-change/

The article says that 70% of "direct responses" (whatever that means) want NAAFA to change its name, which is very different from these survey results. (Yes, I know web surveys can be hacked, and may not be representative, blah blah blah, but it's still a rather dramatic difference of opinion.) The article quotes NAAFA's board chairman as being very dismissive of those who oppose the change. He says they are only motivated by "nostalgia" and history of the organization, so I suspect the name change has already been unilaterally decided by the board. The board chairman even goes so far as to explicitly state that they've lost the battle to re-claim the word "fat" as anything other than a negative word. In other words, he says that NAAFA is giving up. I hate to say it, but if NAAFA leadership really believes this, they should just shut down the organization. They've completely sold out to the media and corporate interests.



Blackjack said:


> NAAFA: Promoting fat acceptance by further stigmatizing the word "fat".
> 
> Is there any wonder they're losing any relevance they might've had?



Well said, BJ.


----------



## BigBeautifulMe (Jul 28, 2013)

mango said:


> *F.W.A.
> 
> 
> *


FWB = Friends with Benefits
FWA = Friends with Asses? 

haha.


----------



## ScreamingChicken (Jul 28, 2013)

BigBeautifulMe said:


> FWB = Friends with Benefits
> FWA = Friends with Asses?
> 
> haha.



FWA=Friends with Ampleness?


----------



## superodalisque (Jul 28, 2013)

Yakatori said:


> "The generation after a revolution inherits all of its problems and none of its passion."
> 
> I don't know if he was the original source, but, from time to time, it pops up in my head like it was just yesterday that I'd heard it for the very first time.



yes it has become a bit inbred insular and complacent


----------



## wrestlingguy (Jul 28, 2013)

I know there are some who feel that the organization has outlived its useful purpose, but let's face it, there's no group out there to better promote fat acceptance. Only problem is, they don't want to use the word "fat" anymore.

Could you imagine what the Black Panthers would have been without the Black in their name? How about GLAAD, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation?

One of the reasons for the change is a willingness from outside sources to fund an organization that carries a word in their name that has a social stigma. I know little about the inner workings of the organization, and how their money is spent (though I'm betting our webmaster was around long them long enough to have some insight), but it's obvious that they want funding. Perhaps if either more people paid to join, or as I had said when I contacted them both on Twitter and privately, that I would be willing to give them better financial support if they remained true to their name and mission.


----------



## HereticFA (Jul 28, 2013)

musicman said:


> The article quotes NAAFA's board chairman as being very dismissive of those who oppose the change. He says they are only motivated by "nostalgia" and history of the organization, so I suspect the name change has already been unilaterally decided by the board. The board chairman even goes so far as to explicitly state that they've lost the battle to re-claim the word "fat" as anything other than a negative word. In other words, he says that NAAFA is giving up. I hate to say it, but if NAAFA leadership really believes this, they should just shut down the organization. They've completely sold out to the media and corporate interests.
> .



I've been considering this issue for several days and I've come to a decision that I'm sure some will take exception to. As a former (but not current) NAAFA member and Chapter officer, I strongly encourage them to stop using the name of NAAFA. My sense of "nostalgia" and honor is _greatly_ insulted by their continued used of NAAFA since they do not support Fat Acceptance but instead are pushing the more nebulous "size acceptance". Heaven knows average and small size people need as much acceptance as they can muster. Discrimination against those groups is just abysmal.

By lowering the bar, maybe the organization formerly known as NAAFA might be able to claim accomplishing some goal of size acceptance. Obviously the current slate of appointed board members of NAAFA are unable to further the original goals of the organization. The demands and requirements of the task exceed their skill set and vision.


----------



## HereticFA (Jul 28, 2013)

wrestlingguy said:


> Perhaps if either more people paid to join, or as I had said when I contacted them both on Twitter and privately, that I would be willing to give them better financial support if they remained true to their name and mission.



Unfortunately they've gotten to a stage where they need many, many major supporters at $10k/year or more. The little single membership dues just weren't cutting it financially for them. It hit that point back in the 90's when they transfered over from a membership driven and operated organization to a "professionally run" organization. This latest step is not surprising in the least for those with knowledge of NAAFA history. I'd say it's actually a logical next step.

The sad part is the best material was developed when they were member operated. After the transition to a professionally run organization, the intellectual well seemed to dry up. Watching their website over the last decade or so, I'd say it's been very stagnent with regards to new visions, concepts or approaches. All it seems to be anymore is a place for people to pad their CV and to pat themselves on the back each year at the convention with mutual awards for the great job each of them says the other is doing.


----------



## Blackjack (Jul 29, 2013)

wrestlingguy said:


> Perhaps if either more people paid to join, or as I had said when I contacted them both on Twitter and privately, that I would be willing to give them better financial support if they remained true to their name and mission.



I would likely be more willing to join if they did not vilify my existence as a feeder, and treat feedees with such disdain, for a start. Or did what their stated mission is and actually support fat people- not just the "good fatties". This has long been an issue that people have voiced about NAAFA, and a couple of people went to the NAAFA convention just this past weekend were talking about the hostility that they were met with less than half an hour after it started by a board who were defensive and rude. The board also refused to even address questions from online, stating that if they had something to say they should be there, otherwise their questions don't matter.

Why would I, having heard about this stuff, support an organization that 1. hates my friends and myself for who we are, 2. does NOT promote size acceptance, as they claim, because there is apparently a limit on how fat they're okay with, and 3. considers inconsequential the opinions of people who aren't able to make the trip out to the convention?


----------



## Morganer (Jul 29, 2013)

HereticFA said:


> *Unfortunately they've gotten to a stage where they need many, many major supporters at $10k/year or more.* The little single membership dues just weren't cutting it financially for them. It hit that point back in the 90's when they transfered over from a membership driven and operated organization to a "professionally run" organization. This latest step is not surprising in the least for those with knowledge of NAAFA history. I'd say it's actually a logical next step.
> 
> The sad part is the best material was developed when they were member operated. After the transition to a professionally run organization, the intellectual well seemed to dry up. Watching their website over the last decade or so, I'd say it's been very stagnent with regards to new visions, concepts or approaches. All it seems to be anymore is a place for people to pad their CV and to pat themselves on the back each year at the convention with mutual awards for the great job each of them says the other is doing.



Are you saying that to be in NAAFA you need to give them *$10,000?*

^^ For realz?


----------



## HereticFA (Jul 29, 2013)

Morganer said:


> Are you saying that to be in NAAFA you need to give them *$10,000?*
> 
> ^^ For realz?



No. You can _join_ for a nominal fee of $15.00. I'm saying NAAFA is _dependent_ on higher dollar level contributions. That's why they are changing the name of the organization, to make themselves more attractive to corporate contributors who _might_ provide them with money. I'm beginning to think the income is now how they are keeping score of their success, not in how much they advance size acceptance or in how many members they have.


----------



## HereticFA (Jul 29, 2013)

Blackjack said:


> I would likely be more willing to join if they did not vilify my existence as a feeder, and treat feedees with such disdain, for a start. Or did what their stated mission is and actually support fat people- not just the "good fatties". This has long been an issue that people have voiced about NAAFA, and a couple of people went to the NAAFA convention just this past weekend were talking about the hostility that they were met with less than half an hour after it started by a board who were defensive and rude. The board also refused to even address questions from online, stating that if they had something to say they should be there, otherwise their questions don't matter.



It's strange how while NAAFA claims to pursue size acceptance, it practices size discrimination against those it doesn't see as "good fatties". I'm so glad I was able to experience NAAFA in the late 80's & early 90's while it was still a diverse organization rather than the monoculture of intolerance it's apparently become.

On the other hand, this shows the field is wide open for a new organization actively pursuing Fat Acceptance.


----------



## Webmaster (Jul 29, 2013)

from my 2002 State of NAAFA Address...

There is absolutely no doubt that were living in a changed world. The changes range from new political realities, like terrorism and the fear that were being attacked right in our very own country; to new economic realities where a vast amount of wealth has been wiped out because of some spectacular collapses in the stock market, like Enron and Worldcom, to new communications realities, where the internet and the world wide web have completely changed the way we communicate with one another, the way we get news, the way we work, and even the way we entertain ourselves.

All of this has had a profound impact on NAAFA. When I did my first State of NAAFA address in 1987, we had just engaged in an ambitious plan to convert NAAFA into a professional organization with a full-time executive director, a staff, and a strong national office. We had many committees working on projects furthering the goals of size acceptance, many volunteers, and there was a great sense of optimism. Our paid membership grew to 5000 people, a staff of six people worked in the national office, and NAAFA had 50 local chapters. NAAFA representatives were on TV almost every week, politicians were courting us, NAAFAs executive director was invited to meet with the governor of the state of New York, we demonstrated before the White House for better healthcare for fat people, and we took on, with surprising success, the Surgeon General when he declared war on obesity. In those days, in the days just before the web, NAAFA and a few likeminded groups were pretty much the only source of size-related information, just as it had been when Bill Fabrey and a few other brave people founded NAAFA back in 1969.

Today, anyone with a computer can get any amount of information for free, without having to join an organization. All you have to do is type a few keywords into a search engine and within seconds you have hundreds of references and access to just about anything you want. If anything, there is too much information. This is really a terrific thing, but it has also had a devastating impact on many membership organizations, and especially those like NAAFA who provided information and services that no one else had access to. As a result, the last few years have been very hard for NAAFA. Its been a constant financial struggle to keep the doors open. Without the very generous help of a small number of major donors, NAAFA would have closed years ago. But even with their help, we often do not know how to pay our bills, how to pay the rent, and how to make sure that our executive director can cash her paycheck.

To be honest, sometimes it seems easier to just give up.

But every time we think we just cant go on we realize that the fight is not over. NAAFAs basic mission, that of fighting against size discrimination and fighting to increase the quality of life for fat people remains as valid as it was in 1969. Fat people continue to be discriminated against. Fat jokes are still considered perfectly acceptable. The diet industry still makes billions off fat people by making them feel bad about themselves. And now more and more companies, and even our government, are starting to single out fat people and penalize them, as if being fat were some sort of crime. Southwest Airline employees can now decide whether you are too fat. And if they think you are too fat, you pay twice because you inconvenience other people. Never mind that it is YOU who is inconvenienced and humiliated and harassed and penalized for not fitting into those tiny seats of theirs. So instead of putting in a couple of rows of wider seats to accommodate larger passengers, something they could easily do because their average occupancy rate is only about 70%, they send you to the back of the bus. And if we let them send fat people to the back of the bus, you can be sure that others will start doing it, too. And that is discrimination and un-American. Our society is built on accommodating all of us even though it may sometimes cost a bit more. Children or older people cost more, or those with injuries and many others. Thats just the way it is. Our society knows that and were spreading the cost, but now someone like Southwest comes along and wants you to pay twice. Youre not only discriminated against, you have to pay twice. We cant let them get away with it.

Its things like this that make me realize that NAAFA is still needed, maybe more than ever. But, as I pointed out a few minutes ago, the money just isnt there anymore because the old membership organization model just doesnt work anymore. In order to go on, NAAFA must change and adapt to the information age. This is, in fact, a classic example of the glass being half full rather than being half empty. Yes, the internet and the web have made a membership organization essentially obsolete, but the internet and the web have also given us incredible new tools to accomplish more and to work smarter. The basic question that must be asked is this: With the Internet and the web a reality, what can NAAFA offer fat people, and how can NAAFA use these new tools to accomplish its mission?

I came up with four areas:

First, because the new technologies and resources make it possible to have meetings and communication in entirely new ways we no longer have to travel across country for a meeting. We can simply meet in a chatroom. And we no longer have to wait days or weeks for letters to arrive. We simply email or use web boards. This will attract more people into leadership and volunteering. 

Second, with all that overload of information out there, NAAFA should collect and map access to that information so as to become THE place to go when anyone seeks anything relating to size discrimination and size acceptance. In addition, NAAFA has a huge amount of size-related information, and all of that should be made available online, on the NAAFA website.

Third, we can take advantage of the web and email to organize and quickly disseminate information. NAAFA needs to map online access to political bodies, news agencies, and so on so that they can be alerted and lobbied whenever needed. A great example of how that can work is Elizabeth Fishers brilliantly conceived and executed cyber appeal to the NHTSA about making seatbelts long enough to fit all people.

And fourth, NAAFA must offer enough value on its website to get people to help NAAFA and become a paid member or supporter. To that end, were trying to make NAAFAs website a complete resource and community for fat people, one that provides easy access to the really important information, one that is a place to hang out, a place for special interest groups and likeminded people to discuss issues, and also a place where people can be mobilized and informed.

Weve actually been working on this for a couple of years now. I am spending a lot of my NAAFA time these looking after the website and trying to make it as valuable as possible. NAAFAs main message board now has about 70 new posts every day, and there are probably a couple of hundred more on the many special interest boards. One of the challenges ahead will be to use all of this to generate enough income to keep the NAAFA office going and NAAFAs work alive. Websites are great, but unless there is a real organization and community behind one, its just words on a screen. 

And I realize that using these new cyber tools is just one small step, but I think it is a very important step to continue the dream of making NAAFAs mission a reality. From many years of serving on NAAFAs board and many years of publishing Dimensions and then saving BBW Magazine from extinction, I do know that in this movement of ours there are many different people, and that we have many different needs that both bind us and cause friction among us. The hurt that being fat brings to people is so deep and affects individuals in so many different ways that any ONE effort to fix it ALL is almost certain to, if not fail, then to meet with opposition and doubt. That is only natural. And that is why it is healthy for people in an oppressed group to think for themselves and to take their destiny into their own hands. Anyone who does anything to lessen the kind of discrimination and ridicule, societal pressure and prejudice, obstacles and barriers, and general disdain and neglect fat people face in our society is to be applauded. All of you are to be applauded. You are all doing well. You are helping. You are helping to make this world a better and fairer place. 

And have no doubts about it. All of that work is needed. Discussion among us is needed. NAAFA is often accused of not addressing certain issues, and some of those accusations are justified. For example, NAAFA doesnt have a good answer for those who believe in size acceptance, but whose bodies simply cant handle their size. Being fat means so many different things. It can describe a flight attendant losing her job because she weighs 150 pounds instead of 145, and it can also describe a 700-pound person who has lost all mobility and has become desperate for any lifeline. Quite obviously, the needs of all those different people that are all lumped together as fat are quite varied. The discussions among us can be heated because we all have our own priorities and those priorities seem the most important to us. And they are. In the best of all worlds all those priorities and hurts and concerns would be and could be tackled and fixed in a united, coordinated way. 

But this is not a perfect world we live in. Although fat people now make up the majority of the population of this country of ours, and though, if we held together, identified with one another, and voted together, we could put an end to most of the discrimination, at least, within a matter of a year or so, I know that we are far too diverse a group to ever make that happen. 

So we have to go to Plan B. Which is to work together knowing that at times we will disagree, that we have many different goals, and that we will have to learn to co-exist and complement one another because that is the best way to get our respective goals accomplished. 

So thats my basic message for tonight: we must work together towards a common goal even though we may not always agree with one another. And we must use all these new communication and information tools available to us.

And a few words of NAAFA itself. As someone who has been involved in NAAFA for over 20 years, it sometimes puzzles me that so many people see NAAFA as a far larger organization than it is. Personally, I consider NAAFAs mission right up there with the Bill of Rights, but as an organization, NAAFA has always been relatively small and insignificant. At our best, we had no more than 5,000 members, and yet that, and the sheer determination of those who dedicated their time and their lives to this cause somehow managed to make people listen, and to have a far greater impact than what one might expect from such a small group. I know that everything NAAFA has ever made or done can be refuted or argued, rightly or wrongly, but I do firmly believe that we HAVE made an impact. I do think that in some way, almost insignificant for some and quite significant for others, NAAFA has made an impact. 

And that is what gives me hope and makes me want to stay involved with NAAFA and help this wonderful idea adapt to a new age, a new era where so much is possible in so many new ways. If you want to be part of this, realize that while NAAFA has a long history, it is nothing more than a small office with two employees who never know if there even will be a paycheck for their work. But that office contains the records, history, words, accomplishments of more than a quarter of a century of dedication by a lot of truly terrific people. Other organizations have come and gone and done a lot of good work, but almost none have the longevity based in sheer determination and will that NAAFA has. NAAFA cannot and will not die because its task is not done. In fact, I firmly believe that NAAFAs most influential days still lie ahead. 

So please do anything you can to help NAAFA achieve its mission. Spread the word. Help make the world a place where you do not have to be ashamed to be who and what you are. Will there be sometimes heated discussions? Absolutely. Will there be times when we disagree? You bet. But is this a cause that we all need to win together? I definitely think it is.


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Jul 29, 2013)

The ironic part is Dimensions, feels more of an on-line community, then NAAFA. 

I know NAAFA tried to start a forums sections like here, but they seems to be abandoned. 

Except for one or two in California, the local chapters are history. They seems to be mostly relying on the annual national convention, but that has to compete with Well Rounded in the West and the Club Ample in the East, that are very large Bash around the same time. 

NAAFA, has a lot to adapt to.


----------



## superodalisque (Jul 29, 2013)

i think it's not working because there are other problems people have that are more pressing than being fat. i think a lot of fat people actually have that in perspective. no one is buying the nobody loves you thing because we a fat anymore because most of us do have friends lovers and even family who are not emotionally abusive toward us because of our weight. and when we do we know how to exclude and replace them. we aren't helpless and crying. the very idea that all of society hates us because of our size is what has killed any possibility of anyone who is fat or is not fat taking a part in the movement. when the people who do actually love us become the enemy i think the gig is up. 

when other people who are different from us are generally automatically assumed to be prejudiced the deal is off. you can't change the minds of people if all you do is vilify and exclude even the ones who are out to support you. you can't hide all of your events because you are afraid of protesters. you have to invite other people in to learn and socialize so that they can understand and stop expecting them to just get it without our help. people who are detractors are an opportunity to fight back and another opportunity for others who want to join us to help. it also makes our tortures look like the nasty beasts they are and exposes them as the prejudiced haters that they are.

other items that should be of concern like the issues with the boy scouts etc... don't even need fat folk to get behind it because mothers are. the truth is we have fluffed the chances we had to make connections with Moms Dads and family because sexual fetish and hooking up was more important than helping people and being political or inclusive. and because we often don't see why we should be helping others and forming the kind of mutual care connections needed we look exactly like the lazy selfish stereotype some people say we are. if food is important to us we should be involved as a group in things like feeding the hungry. or if SA is important we should also be making sure thin, short or tall people don't get discriminated against either. but we aren't as a group. so our public image is that we just sit around thinking about only ourselves. so when our issues come up no one has any positive references about what what fat people do or care about besides themselves.

none of the fat community is lacking in technological skills and know how but a lot of it is lacking in total positive energy mutual trust and dedication by the same large numbers who are willing to go somewhere to hook up for sex.


----------



## wrestlingguy (Jul 29, 2013)

Blackjack said:


> I would likely be more willing to join if they did not vilify my existence as a feeder, and treat feedees with such disdain, for a start. Or did what their stated mission is and actually support fat people- not just the "good fatties". This has long been an issue that people have voiced about NAAFA, and a couple of people went to the NAAFA convention just this past weekend were talking about the hostility that they were met with less than half an hour after it started by a board who were defensive and rude. The board also refused to even address questions from online, stating that if they had something to say they should be there, otherwise their questions don't matter.
> 
> Why would I, having heard about this stuff, support an organization that 1. hates my friends and myself for who we are, 2. does NOT promote size acceptance, as they claim, because there is apparently a limit on how fat they're okay with, and 3. considers inconsequential the opinions of people who aren't able to make the trip out to the convention?



Beej,
I can only relate to you what was explained to me about feederism by the NAAFA brass. Feederism, according to them, is the exact opposite of size acceptance, because it operates under the premise that the feeder and feedee somehow find the body of the feedee unacceptable and need to change it.
I will also say that many people outside the scope of NAAFA, but who are involved in size acceptance feel the same way. These are not my opinions, just the way it has been explained to me.
While I have my own opinions on feederism, they don't relate to the topic, and are unimportant in this discussion.


----------



## Blackjack (Jul 29, 2013)

wrestlingguy said:


> Beej,
> I can only relate to you what was explained to me about feederism by the NAAFA brass. Feederism, according to them, is the exact opposite of size acceptance, because it operates under the premise that the feeder and feedee somehow find the body of the feedee unacceptable and need to change it.
> I will also say that many people outside the scope of NAAFA, but who are involved in size acceptance feel the same way. These are not my opinions, just the way it has been explained to me.
> While I have my own opinions on feederism, they don't relate to the topic, and are unimportant in this discussion.



If feedism is the opposite of size acceptance, then what is it when they shame people who aren't "good" fatties? Their brand of acceptance comes with exceptions and conditions, and that doesn't fly well with me. It's not acceptance if you then turn and say "but not you, you're a problem" to people who would support the organization and benefit from it.

The whole thing is based on a drastic misrepresentation of feedism itself as some inverse parallel of anorexic ideals, as though the changing a person's body at whatever cost is what it's about, rather than the realities, which vary from person to person but in my experience are best summed up as "this feels good, I like this" in a manner no different from any other interest (not just sexual interest, but general interest, because feedism is not a strictly sexual thing for some people).

Their stance on it is presumptuous and at best oblivious to the thoughts and opinions of actual feedists- but in truth I think that it's a matter of completely disregarding any input from the people they're vilifying.

I've found feedists who are some of the most size-positive people I can think of, who are far more supportive of people learning to accept their bodies than many others in the size acceptance movement. It's going to be difficult to convince me that people who so wonderfully promote and embody these concepts are a detriment to those same ideals just because they like being stuffed full of cupcakes and get a thrill from outgrowing clothes.

Ultimately the view of NAAFA is so completely misinformed and wrong that to correct it would require extensively derailing the conversation (even more so than I already have done) to have a basic Feedism 101 lecture that starts at square one and has as a homework assignment "actually listen to people who are into it".

ETA: As a side note, I don't know your opinions on feedism- I think I read them at some point, but can't recall. But it's not yours that I'm putting on blast here in this post so much as those pushed by NAAFA. Basically I just want to say that the frustration and anger on my part isn't directed at you in this, but rather the general sentiment that you've related.


----------



## superodalisque (Jul 29, 2013)

today i read some things elsewhere about this issue that made me think : it's not okay to think being fat and healthy is good but it is okay to characterize being fat as a disability and give it that status? oookaaaay...


i also think feederism is distraction from the political goal of the human rights of fat people since it_ is _based on changing someone's existing body. not only that, but the sexual sensationalism is easily used to divert attention away from the basics of just treating people right -- especially since most fat folk are not even involved with a feeder or feedee. just like it has here it degenerates into a discussion of what feederism is and whether it is acceptable to people or not when that is not the issue at hand. that is a whole other movement that is more based on sexuality. i would guess that most fat folks feel that what they choose to do in their bedrooms is nobody's business except for the person they are there with and is not a subject for public discussion judgement or debate. it should be perfectly obvious to people that if a fat person is married or in a relationship that someone finds them lovable and attractive. that is enough. the sexual details are not their business. it is not a fat person's job to sell sexuality to other people.


it also turns peoples attentions to exactly what it is that fat people or eating and in and of itself creates more attention on the "bad fattie" dynamic. i respect the subversive nature of what a lot of people believe in but there are also people who enjoy eating in a healthy fashion and trying to exercise and feel that being strong is a great thing. there is or should be room for those too. there are a lot of fat folk who are very proud of the fact that they are just as interested in their health as thin people who are into fitness. to make it a bad thing for fat people to be into fitness seems to be just as stereotypical as what prejudiced folk in public think about fat people--that we must be the types of people who are totally dismissive of our health. being or having a goal of being strong disease free mobile and fat should not be something people have to be quiet about. just as if it is not it should not be a problem. if a fat person was healthy it could also make life easier for her/his admirer. it is also a part of many fantasies that this can be so. fat people should also not be made into pariahs when they are trying to make that into a reality.


----------



## superodalisque (Jul 29, 2013)

i just wanted to add that sexual viability is not the yardstick that equality and human rights is measured by.


----------



## HereticFA (Jul 30, 2013)

Webmaster said:


> from my 2002 State of NAAFA Address...
> 
> <historical stuff snipped>


Unfortunately NAAFA never really made the transition to an information age organization. They were still stuck in the mindset of them being a gatekeeper style organization where they were the only size acceptance game in town. Like a little town that had a bypass built, people stayed away from the center of the place whenever possible. That removed the possibility of even influencing the newcomers to size acceptance in a meaningful way. I dare say more people have been personally introduced to size acceptance via the non-NAAFA bashes and fat sex sites than personal interaction with NAAFA (not counting media exposure of various NAAFA personalities in the 90's).

If anything your comment "_And fourth, NAAFA must offer enough value on its website to get people to help NAAFA and become a paid member or supporter. To that end, were trying to make NAAFAs website a complete resource and community for fat people, one that provides easy access to the really important information, one that is a place to hang out, a place for special interest groups and likeminded people to discuss issues, and also a place where people can be mobilized and informed._" was sadly indicative of the real problems to come. With the lack of utilization of volunteers, chasing members out of the online community, and the rise of non-NAAFA online communities that were more open and accepting and better suited peoples interests, NAAFA just lost relevance

I hit the web today searching for various citations of NAAFA at other websites. I was hoping I had been too hard and critical on them. I was sadly disappointed to have my earlier view validated. I found at least four articles and professional papers that had references to dead links in the NAAFA website, and that was just on the first Google search page. Apparently there had been a massive rewrite of the NAAFA website breaking links to the legacy information, the level of excellence continues unabated. It effectively truncated the professional references they are supposed to be cultivating.

The good news is there are some new professional information packets. Unfortunately they are not immediately downloadable. (You have to fill our a request with your personal information and wait for NAAFA to contact you. How 1950's.) Actually, none of the earlier NAAFA materials or information seems to be available any more. Someone hit the reset button and all that earlier NAAFA information seems to be gone. It's strangely appropriate.


----------



## HereticFA (Jul 30, 2013)

superodalisque said:


> i just wanted to add that sexual viability is not the yardstick that equality and human rights is measured by.


But it is covered under Maslow's hierarchy of needs. I've found that to be much better at understanding the social dynamics of NAAFA. The core problem is the impatience of those at the upper levels with the ones at the lower levels.

And it certainly is a human right to be allowed to develop yourself up the hierarchy of needs at your own speed. 

View attachment Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs.jpg


----------



## superodalisque (Jul 30, 2013)

HereticFA said:


> But it is covered under Maslow's hierarchy of needs. I've found that to be much better at understanding the social dynamics of NAAFA. The core problem is the impatience of those at the upper levels with the ones at the lower levels.
> 
> And it certainly is a human right to be allowed to develop yourself up the hierarchy of needs at your own speed.



people certainly do have the right to start out and make their way up from the bottom. but unfortunately there are many who have dwelled at the bottom for many many years and never evolved beyond and don't want others to either --which is why the movement stagnates. people grow beyond a certain point and they leave because there hasn't been enough developed above the low levels to sustain them. Maslow's heirarchy does make a good point in some ways. but when it comes to human rights it can also seem a bit silly. i doubt that black people or jewish people were interested in proving how sexy they were to people before they were freed from slavery or liberated from the holocaust. Maslow's heirarchy is for personal development. it is not about the need of a political class. the problem is too many fat people still see everything about fat as their own personal battle instead of as a human right.


----------



## ashmamma84 (Jul 30, 2013)

superodalisque said:


> people certainly do have the right to start out and make their way up from the bottom. but unfortunately there are many who have dwelled at the bottom for many many years and never evolved beyond and don't want others to either --which is why the movement stagnates. people grow beyond a certain point and they leave because there hasn't been enough developed above the low levels to sustain them. Maslow's heirarchy does make a good point in some ways. but when it comes to human rights it can also seem a bit silly. i doubt that black people or jewish people were interested in proving how sexy they were to people before they were freed from slavery or liberated from the holocaust. Maslow's heirarchy is for personal development. it is not about the need of a political class. the problem is too many fat people still see everything about fat as their own personal battle instead of as a human right.



As a black woman who happens to be gay, I don't give a damn about whether the general public finds me sexy or fuckable. I want human/civil rights damnit! Movements do far better when society sees a groups humanity than just a collection of body parts. It is part of why I think the gay community is making inroads. The focus is not just about gay men having butt sex. The movement has appealed to many because we've reached out to the people who love and care about us. Friends, parents, coworkers and colleagues, etc. Its the outreach that's working to our favor. NAAFA needs to stop being insular, otherwise it will be a thing of the past soon.


----------



## HereticFA (Jul 31, 2013)

superodalisque said:


> people certainly do have the right to start out and make their way up from the bottom. but unfortunately there are many who have dwelled at the bottom for many many years and never evolved beyond and don't want others to either --which is why the movement stagnates. people grow beyond a certain point and they leave because there hasn't been enough developed above the low levels to sustain them. Maslow's heirarchy does make a good point in some ways. but when it comes to human rights it can also seem a bit silly. i doubt that black people or jewish people were interested in proving how sexy they were to people before they were freed from slavery or liberated from the holocaust. Maslow's heirarchy is for personal development. it is not about the need of a political class. the problem is too many fat people still see everything about fat as their own personal battle instead of as a human right.


The single biggest problem with the "human rights" approach to fat acceptance is that the weight loss industry has been successfully using the arguments of "rights" to get insurance companies to pay for various weight loss methods since the late 1990's or early 2000's. Walt Lindstrom has been instrumental in using that approach. The argument being that people have a fundamental right to _not_ be fat so therefore the insurance company HAS to pay for medical treatments to help eliminate fat. At some point in the future our philosophy and their philosophy will collide in a courtroom and we'll probably lose. As for fat people seeing things as a personal battle, it will stay that way for a long time due to the very fundamental association with weight loss and reduction in symptoms and measures of some obesity related diseases. No amount of political arguing will change that.

Absent clearly egregious examples of human rights abuses against fat people (like lynchings, mass executions, enslavement, etc.), Maslow's hierarchy is a credible tally of lower level human rights. Just because some people do not want to be considered attractive sexually to anyone else, that doesn't mean that philosophy is embraced by everyone. Everyone has the human right to live their life as they see fit. Being able to take personal action to attract the specific type of mate you are interested in definitely falls within the scope of a human right. Otherwise, there would be nothing wrong with arranged marriages.

The one area of appropriate application of human rights as applied to our circumstance was in the area of employment. Unfortunately when they dollarized the company expenses of fat employees, we lost a lot of our positional strength. I've yet to see a good argument to combat that issue that would win over some opponents.

There is another issue with Maslow's hierarchy I've noticed over the years. There are a lot of people who seem to have overdeveloped their Self-Actualization and Esteem levels to compensate for underdeveloped lower levels, especially the Safety layer. Obviously those people need to work their way down while others are working their way up. Unfortunately that can take a lifetime, regardless of which direction you're heading.


----------



## bigmac (Jul 31, 2013)

NAAFA is increasingly irrelevant because things have actually gotten better for most fat folks. Twenty or thirty years ago few stores sold stylish cloths for fat people. Twenty or thirty years ago a 400 pound person walking down the street was a sideshow of one. Twenty or thirty years ago fat people had few social options -- now there are BBW clubs and events coast to coast.

NAAFA also sped its demise by failing to support and nurture its local chapters. For example at the 1995 convention in Seattle I observed volunteers from the local chapter being treated like shit. A name change is not going to undue years of incompetence.


----------



## tonynyc (Jul 31, 2013)

HereticFA said:


> Unfortunately NAAFA never really made the transition to an information age organization. They were still stuck in the mindset of them being a gatekeeper style organization where they were the only size acceptance game in town. Like a little town that had a bypass built, people stayed away from the center of the place whenever possible. That removed the possibility of even influencing the newcomers to size acceptance in a meaningful way. I dare say more people have been personally introduced to size acceptance via the non-NAAFA bashes and fat sex sites than personal interaction with NAAFA (not counting media exposure of various NAAFA personalities in the 90's).
> 
> If anything your comment "_And fourth, NAAFA must offer enough value on its website to get people to help NAAFA and become a paid member or supporter. To that end, were trying to make NAAFAs website a complete resource and community for fat people, one that provides easy access to the really important information, one that is a place to hang out, a place for special interest groups and likeminded people to discuss issues, and also a place where people can be mobilized and informed._" was sadly indicative of the real problems to come. With the lack of utilization of volunteers, chasing members out of the online community, and the rise of non-NAAFA online communities that were more open and accepting and better suited peoples interests, NAAFA just lost relevance
> 
> ...



_
Certainly this... if you the web experience of the NAAFA site is a failure... then potential folks are not going to stay

_



ashmamma84 said:


> As a black woman who happens to be gay, I don't give a damn about whether the general public finds me sexy or fuckable. I want human/civil rights damnit! Movements do far better when society sees a groups humanity than just a collection of body parts. It is part of why I think the gay community is making inroads. The focus is not just about gay men having butt sex. The movement has appealed to many because we've reached out to the people who love and care about us. Friends, parents, coworkers and colleagues, etc. Its the outreach that's working to our favor. NAAFA needs to stop being insular, otherwise it will be a thing of the past soon.



_
Also depends what "folks" are seeking - for some it's the Human Rights others Social AND if you have more choices other than NAAFA folks will go to what is best for them ....
_



bigmac said:


> NAAFA is increasingly irrelevant because things have actually gotten better for most fat folks. Twenty or thirty years ago few stores sold stylish cloths for fat people. Twenty or thirty years ago a 400 pound person walking down the street was a sideshow of one. Twenty or thirty years ago fat people had few social options -- now there are BBW clubs and events coast to coast.
> 
> NAAFA also sped its demise by failing to support and nurture its local chapters. For example at the 1995 convention in Seattle I observed volunteers from the local chapter being treated like shit. A name change is not going to undue years of incompetence.



_

I heard that the '95 convention was a real clusterfuck 
Progress can be the deal breaker...
1. Folks can find the information that is needed on the net
2. There are more choices with respect to "fashion" - "groups" (Meetup)
3. Local NAAFA Chapters could not compete with Local competition when it came to hosting weekly/monthly social events...

As a side note- I attended the 2004 Convention when it was held in NJ. There was some issues as to how things where organized.. It took the efforts from the long defunct NAAFA group from the Boston /Mass area get things going
_


----------



## amidsttundra (Jul 31, 2013)

I've obviously never attended or been part of the NAAFA, owing to the fact I am British.

At best, I have merely been aware of its existence, but the primary reason I could never be bothered with the NAAFA is that every single thing I have heard about it boils it down into a drier-than-Ryvita sounding board for a few (self) important members.

They appear to castigate certain sections of the fat community for not being their type of fat person and run the show like a corporate board room.

They've failed to modernize, they've failed to incorporate fun and they've done little to solve anything beyond their gatherings. 

The whole NAAFA experience seems to be a lot of internal head-nodding and backslapping and absolutely zero action. I cannot see how such an organization hopes to engage younger people or regenerate its pool of members. It's the activism poster child for stagnation.


----------



## bigmac (Aug 1, 2013)

tonynyc said:


> _
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



The beginning of the end. The turnout was great. The social aspects of the convention were great. However, there was much dissension among the activist types (I was firmly in the social camp that weekend so I really don't know what happened).

A rift seems to have developed between those with an activist agenda and the larger group with a more social agenda. The socially minded eventually found other groups (local BBW clubs and national and regional bashes). This left NAAFA's activist core without a larger membership group.


----------



## superodalisque (Aug 1, 2013)

HereticFA said:


> The single biggest problem with the "human rights" approach to fat acceptance is that the weight loss industry has been successfully using the arguments of "rights" to get insurance companies to pay for various weight loss methods since the late 1990's or early 2000's. Walt Lindstrom has been instrumental in using that approach. The argument being that people have a fundamental right to _not_ be fat so therefore the insurance company HAS to pay for medical treatments to help eliminate fat. At some point in the future our philosophy and their philosophy will collide in a courtroom and we'll probably lose. As for fat people seeing things as a personal battle, it will stay that way for a long time due to the very fundamental association with weight loss and reduction in symptoms and measures of some obesity related diseases. No amount of political arguing will change that.
> 
> Absent clearly egregious examples of human rights abuses against fat people (like lynchings, mass executions, enslavement, etc.), Maslow's hierarchy is a credible tally of lower level human rights. Just because some people do not want to be considered attractive sexually to anyone else, that doesn't mean that philosophy is embraced by everyone. Everyone has the human right to live their life as they see fit. Being able to take personal action to attract the specific type of mate you are interested in definitely falls within the scope of a human right. Otherwise, there would be nothing wrong with arranged marriages.
> 
> ...



honestly i don't care f people want to be thin. that is okay by me. i think it's weird to want to trap people who don't want to be fat into it as if absolutely no one is fat by choice. 

your argument about the cost of fatness in the workplace does not hold water. every employee has their own specific costs . older people have healthcare costs. younger people have more training costs and other people with physical challenges have costs. people with aging parents have costs. people who have children have costs. they all manage to find work. i don't know about you but i work with a whole heck of a lot of fat people in a right to work state where health insurance is now required. no one was let go for being fat. in fact is mostly fat people who have longevity where i work. most of the issues around fat people are lookist, like in sales and as executives. it's not on function and productivity in most cases.

from what i've read of Maslow he never expected humanity to try to lower itself to progress. in fact that is NOT natural to human nature unless someone is dysfunctional. people don't want to go backward . they want to move forward. none of the lower concerns are ignored in Maslow's hierarchy by people who have evolved but the difference is they know how to put them in their proper place. in terms of Maslow's hierarchy it is not possible to over develop the top levels if you have not yet developed the lower levels. that's like saying someone who runs has to go back and learn how to walk. true awareness by anyone's measure is not built on ignorance and inexperience.

also you've brought to the fore another good reason for really separating the sexuality from the politics. admirers need an entirely different movement because they often have their priorities wrong when it comes to fat politics. paramount to them is the idea that it is a human right to have a sexual attraction accepted by others as some kind of a human right. even gay people aren't asking other people to mainly like what they do sexually. they are just asking to have basic human rights. they want the right to marry, not assaulted not be singled out in the workplace in their healthcare,or excluded be from participation in adoption or the rest of society-- like public organizations especially those supported by the tax dollars they pay. they don't generally ask anyone to "like " as a part of their serious political plank or approve of what they do in private. in fact as Ash said they could often care less because they have bigger fish to fry and fat people do as well. we could well use a lesson from the m in prioritization.

the only thing that will give admirers the approval they want is to act on that openly by not being ashamed of who they are with and not apologizing or even asking for approval to like what they like. asking for that alone takes away a lot of their social status. sometimes you just have to be bold and take what you want out of life. fat human rights is not about people making "admirers" feel better about a sexual attraction. that is truly trivial when compared to healthcare, employment, access and other legal rights. 

actually admirers do themselves the most harm by begging for something that they can reach out and take just by being who they as others have done in this society. there are no laws against having a fat lover. no one is stopping them from doing anything. if a look or a statement has that much impact on them being who they are then the problem is much deeper and much more personal than human rights. it's unfair to use a true political movement as an emotional crutch and worse yet to blunt it's impact with the type of focus it brings. you can't legislate self confidence and that is why the necessary politics that NAAFA has engage in is not the answer for admirers unless they really are ready to focus on the practical needs of fat people and not just their own personal feelings. no one is going to employ somebody, treat them with all due care when it comes to their health or allow them to participate in boyscout events because an admirer likes how their rolls look. we need to be realistic. people generally love how women look but guess what, the ERA still hasn't passed.


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Aug 2, 2013)

superodalisque said:


> honestly i don't care f people want to be thin. that is okay by me. i think it's weird to want to trap people who don't want to be fat into it as if absolutely no one is fat by choice.



The problem is not that people want to be thin, it is wht people what to be thin. 

This is because is too many are pressured into being thin, by society, by making it harder on fat people. 

Should it really matter if one is fat by choice?


----------



## EMH1701 (Aug 2, 2013)

superodalisque said:


> your argument about the cost of fatness in the workplace does not hold water. every employee has their own specific costs . older people have healthcare costs. younger people have more training costs and other people with physical challenges have costs. people with aging parents have costs. people who have children have costs. they all manage to find work. i don't know about you but i work with a whole heck of a lot of fat people in a right to work state where health insurance is now required. no one was let go for being fat. in fact is mostly fat people who have longevity where i work. most of the issues around fat people are lookist, like in sales and as executives. it's not on function and productivity in most cases.



The problem is perception these days. All discrimination is based on a perceived viewpoint of others, whether there is any truth to it or not. What people hear hyped up in the media nowadays is that the cost of health care is rising. Who is being scapegoated? Fat people and smokers, but mostly fat people. Hence the increase in discrimination. This is being driven a lot by the news media. So if we are going to fight it, we will have to use the news media and also be able to provide solid numbers to make our case.


----------



## superodalisque (Aug 2, 2013)

EtobicokeFA said:


> The problem is not that people want to be thin, it is wht people what to be thin.
> 
> This is because is too many are pressured into being thin, by society, by making it harder on fat people.
> 
> Should it really matter if one is fat by choice?



that is really their business. yes absolutely it should be a matter of personal choice. fat people who don't like to be fat and want to change should be respected just as much as people who want to stay fat or get fatter should. it is not up to other people to choose what they want to be. that is only found inside of them. fat people don't deserve the paternalism that tells them the don't know their own minds or have the right to autonomy. that knife cuts both ways. if t isn't okay for other people to choose for them to be thin then it's also not okay for them to choose for other people to be fat. it isn't their decision. it's time people on both sides of the issue figured that out. i don't need to ask people why the want to be fat so i shouldn't have to ask anybody why they want to be thin. they are grown ups just like i am. we should just get out more info on how everybody can be as safe as possible. and if we truly want people to be more attracted to staying fat we need to start actually celebrating it more and whining less IMO and leave any negativity at the feet of our political action and not our emotional culture so much. we need to be the example people would like to follow. right now i don't think we are working hard enough on making it a positive thing to be fat even in our own community. we are afraid to share and we are not confident enough to share.


----------



## superodalisque (Aug 2, 2013)

EMH1701 said:


> The problem is perception these days. All discrimination is based on a perceived viewpoint of others, whether there is any truth to it or not. What people hear hyped up in the media nowadays is that the cost of health care is rising. Who is being scapegoated? Fat people and smokers, but mostly fat people. Hence the increase in discrimination. This is being driven a lot by the news media. So if we are going to fight it, we will have to use the news media and also be able to provide solid numbers to make our case.



absolutely. we have to be more serious and professional about how our case is presented. people complain about all of the botched inadequate amateur t.v. appearances that make fat issues look silly. they claim it's because of editing. but honestly it's hard to edit in straight up uncomprehending silliness. well here is a chance for us to have at least one institution to get more serious about what we need to do. i can honestly say that nothing NAAFA has done recently in public has embarrassed me. i have been proud of all of their positions, even the ones i might not fully agree with. they never come out looking foolish. i like that.


----------

