Volume 5, No. 7	July, 1990

Sizism - One of the Last "Safe" Prejudices

As obscene as it sounds, a generation or two ago, Black people were considered to be inherently ugly, stupid, unsanitary, lazy, and enslaved by creature comforts. Today, fat people are assumed to be inherently ugly, stupid, unsanitary, lazy, and enslaved by creature comforts. Such stereotypes are reinforced by both the media and the public. Even in "politically correct" circles, where one would never hear derogatory remarks about people of color, gays and lesbians, or people with disabilities, one continues to hear disparaging remarks about fat people.

Stereotypes, and the resulting prejudice, develop from a belief that a group of people share common characteristics. This belief is almost always grounded in myth. The central myth surrounding the prejudice against fat people is that, if fat people really wanted to, they could lose weight. It doesn't seem to matter that research indicates that fat people are fat because of heredity and metabolic factors; that 95-98% of all diets fail within three to five years; that much of the $33 billion that the diet industry earns annually comes at the expense of the health and well being of fat people; that more people will die from weight loss surgery than died in the Vietnam War; that yo-yo dieting makes a person fatter; that most fat people have no more choice in their size than a person does in the color of their skin. Our society, which accepts that in the bell curve of the human species, some people will be shorter or taller than average, and some people will be thinner than average, cannot accept that some people will be fatter than average.

This climate of non-acceptance creates a "blame the victim" mentality, wherein myths and stereotypes are used to justify treating fat people as second-class citizens. This has a devastating effect on the quality of life for fat people. Fat people are discriminated against in employment, in that they are denied employment, denied promotions and raises, denied benefits, and sometimes fired, all because of their weight. Fat people are discriminated against in education, in that they are not accepted into graduate programs, and are harassed and expelled because of their weight. Fat people cannot adopt children, solely because of their weight. Fat people are denied access to adequate medical care, in that they are denied treatment, misdiagnosed, harassed, and treated as though every medical condition, from a sore throat to a broken bone, is a weight-related condition. Fat people are denied access to public accommodations, such as public transportation, airline travel, theatres, and restaurants because seating is not available for them.

Because fat people are fair game for ridicule and public humiliation, they face substantial social discrimination. Epithets are screamed at fat people; ice cream cones are snatched out of the hands of fat people "for their own good"; fat people are run off of public beaches and out of health spas, because they do not look "acceptable".

This discrimination takes an enormous toll on a fat person's self-esteem, particularly when the person is a child. Unlike children in many other oppressed groups fat children get little support from parents, teachers, or peers; instead of receiving support from her parents or teachers when other children make sizist remarks, a fat child will often be told, "If only you lost weight, you wouldn't have this problem."

Research has documented that women are most often the victims of size discrimination. Perhaps this is because men have traditionally garnered credibility through the power and wealth they accumulate, and women have garnered credibility through how closely they conform to society's ideals of beauty. Size discrimination is therefore linked to sexism. Because women of certain ethnic groups tend to be fatter than white women, size discrimination is linked to racism. Because women get fatter as they get older (a physiological phenomena), size discrimination is linked to ageism. Because lower income women tend to be fatter than higher income women, size discrimination is linked to classism. There should be no doubt that size discrimination is a feminist issue.

In most places, discrimination against fat people is perfectly legal. Currently, there is only one state, Michigan, which has a statute prohibiting size discrimination. And there are only a few cities which have ordinances prohibiting discrimination based on personal appearance. When a fat person decides to fight size discrimination, she most often has to litigate using disability rights laws. But the truth is, while some fat people are disabled, most fat people aren't disabled, leading some courts to create a Catch-22 for fat people. There was a case in Pennsylvania, for example, where the court said that even though the employer didn't want to hire the person because of their physical problems, those problems were not a handicap, and therefore the fat person was not protected by the handicap law. Can you have it both ways? "We're not hiring you because you're physically inadequate, but you're not protected because you are physically adequate."

Fat people desperately need statutory protection, both to raise their quality of life, and to ensure an avenue of redress should they be discriminated against. The words "height and weight" should be added as a protected category, so that an employer cannot arbitrarily dismiss a candidate or an employee because of her size. Schools and universities should not receive state or federal funding if they discriminate against fat people. High school curriculum dealing with civil rights movements should include the size acceptance movement. Training for teachers should include material to raise sensitivity about size issues, and school health care professionals should have accurate information about fat and health, and the self-esteem issues of fat children. There should be a mandate that every public building, from jury boxes in courtrooms to desks in schools, be accessible to fat people.

Neither the California Legislature nor Congress have taken an interest in size discrimination issues. A Congressional subcommittee is holding a series of informational hearings on regulating the diet industry. Legislation coming out of these hearings may give fat people some consumer protection, but will do nothing for problems of size discrimination.

Because this is a feminist issue, NOW should take a public stance against size discrimination. An anti-size discrimination resolution, first passed by California NOW at our 1988 Conference, will be considered at the 1990 National NOW Conference in San Francisco.

-Sally E. Smith

Sally is the Executive Director of the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance and a member of the California NOW Legislative Advisory Committee.