‘You Have the Right to Remain Fat’ was a complicated read for me, despite being quite short. I suppose it’s because I contain culture within myself: culture is lived inside of me as I read and think, and culture tends to have fixed ideas about the use(s) of language. (It’s interesting to consider that the word ‘diet’ has switched to ‘optimise your health!’etc...)
“I encourage people to answer this question: What would your life look like if you stopped trying to control your weight? Let’s go further. What would happen if I told you that your body was fine? What if I told you that you have permission to eat whatever you want and wear whatever you want because you are officially perfect? What if we lived in an imaginary world where you had never been taught that your body was wrong, where you never learned that certain foods were good or bad or evil or healthy? What if we lived in an imaginary world where food wasn’t charged with any moral meaning—hot dogs weren’t morally inferior to carrots, and lettuce wasn’t morally superior to Nutella? Imagine that no clothing was off limits—you could wear whatever colors you wanted, stripes that were horizontal or vertical, sequins or chambray, shorts or crop tops. Imagine that every day you woke up and your first thought wasn’t “I hate this body.” I want you to imagine that you walked around expecting every person to treat you with complete humanity and respect, and when people didn’t, you blamed them for being assholes instead of[…] »
I too wish that we lived in a world where food wasn’t charged with moral meaning, and that people weren’t judged because they dont conform to (arbitrary) cultural standards of beauty. I do feel that this book lacks nuance, though. Eating meat (a dead animal) is different to eating a piece of lettuce, or even Nutella (i.e., Palm oil is an ingredient in Nutella, and so is milk - if we look at how these are sourced, it’s typically destructive and so food just DOES come with a moral compass.)
I think that wishing things into hypothetical existence isn’t that useful, though I really like that there was a praxis of the author’s theory in her meditative retreats where people come to have fun and accept themselves as they are/ revel in the beings that are themselves. I just can’t help but read this from the perspective (and maybe this is a problem, on my part - and I clearly need to read more), that it’s not morally bad EITHER to care about your health, or to not want to eat sugar because of the effect on your microbiome/gut health (which can influence your general mood - 80% of serotonin is produced in the gut). The book also seemed to posit that people who exercised or controlled calorie intake did so for the purpose of culturally conforming (in order to be accepted, loved, valued), but we know there are reasons beyond these desires why people exercise. And wanting these things isn’t bad, but the way we think we will receive these things (through the body) is indeed fucked up.
I exercise and look at what I eat to optimise my bone density and reduce fractures in older age, to feel the rush of endorphins, for greater clarity of mind, to nourish my body with real food which supports brain function, to give myself 30-60 minutes a day to look into myself (I do see exercise as a form of self care), because when you are in touch with your body - you feel good. Being fat clearly doesn’t prevent any of this, and there is a hell of a lot of self-care in saying Fuck It to conformity, and just enjoying the damn piece of cake!
I just think this book is a little one-sided and I suppose I feel defensive because I don’t want to believe that I’m as controlled as I possibly am. Regardless, it was a good book to get thinking about these ideas! I imagine it’d be a good companion piece to really look at our underlying psychological motivations when it comes to ‘diet’ and exercise in a culture which often feels so ‘natural’/‘Normal’, but may really be insidiously violent.