Fat Lib is much more like Class Struggle than say Black Rights, Women's Lib or Gay Rights - therefore it is more likely to fail.
So - I had one of those moments of epiphany the other day.
Y'know how the fat acceptance movement is often compared to say the Civil Rights struggle? Ok, well, it occurred to me that there are, historically, two kinds of liberation movements.
The Civil Rights struggle is one type, but Fat Lib is the other type.
Type A:
The members of this oppressed group cannot leave the group. They have no option but to fight for their rights whilst remaining a group member. (See also, Sun Tzu - an army with no-where to run to, fights most fiercely). Type A movements include:
Anti-Slavery.
Civil Rights (i.e. rights for black people in the USA).
Women's Lib.
Gay Rights.
All are Type A movements.
All have shown a fair degree of unity of purpose and have acheived a great deal.
Type B:
The members of the oppressed group CAN leave the group.
The classic example of this is "Class Struggle", where any member of the oppressed class(es) who acquires enough money / power finds themsleves on the other side of the divide - in a situation where the status quo now favours them - and generally; they then work for the status quo.
Fat Lib is a Type B movement.
Lose enough weight, and you get to leave your oppressed group. Very often the "convert" becomes evangelical for their new "side" (see post weightloss celebs pushing diets etc.)
Type B movements tend to show division of purpose and their acheivements, if any, tend to be temporary and / or become hijacked by those who have successfully left the oppressed group (see the hijacking of fat acceptance phrases by diet pushers).
To sum up: Fat Lib has it's own failure built in.
That's my thesis.
Have at it, Hyde Park.
N.B.:
FAs are in an untenable / indefensible position.
Like gay folks they are by default in a Type A position. They cannot leave their orientation / group.
But FAs are UNlike gay folks insofar as the people they desire are in a Type B position. Thay CAN (and do) leave their body type / group.
So - I had one of those moments of epiphany the other day.
Y'know how the fat acceptance movement is often compared to say the Civil Rights struggle? Ok, well, it occurred to me that there are, historically, two kinds of liberation movements.
The Civil Rights struggle is one type, but Fat Lib is the other type.
Type A:
The members of this oppressed group cannot leave the group. They have no option but to fight for their rights whilst remaining a group member. (See also, Sun Tzu - an army with no-where to run to, fights most fiercely). Type A movements include:
Anti-Slavery.
Civil Rights (i.e. rights for black people in the USA).
Women's Lib.
Gay Rights.
All are Type A movements.
All have shown a fair degree of unity of purpose and have acheived a great deal.
Type B:
The members of the oppressed group CAN leave the group.
The classic example of this is "Class Struggle", where any member of the oppressed class(es) who acquires enough money / power finds themsleves on the other side of the divide - in a situation where the status quo now favours them - and generally; they then work for the status quo.
Fat Lib is a Type B movement.
Lose enough weight, and you get to leave your oppressed group. Very often the "convert" becomes evangelical for their new "side" (see post weightloss celebs pushing diets etc.)
Type B movements tend to show division of purpose and their acheivements, if any, tend to be temporary and / or become hijacked by those who have successfully left the oppressed group (see the hijacking of fat acceptance phrases by diet pushers).
To sum up: Fat Lib has it's own failure built in.
That's my thesis.
Have at it, Hyde Park.
N.B.:
FAs are in an untenable / indefensible position.
Like gay folks they are by default in a Type A position. They cannot leave their orientation / group.
But FAs are UNlike gay folks insofar as the people they desire are in a Type B position. Thay CAN (and do) leave their body type / group.
