missing the point

[cassidyrose]

vito_excalibur posted an interesting, if infuriating, excerpt of an interview Erica Jong did with Judith Thurman about Thurman's "Secrets Of The Flesh: A Life of Colette." (thanks Vito!) In the excerpt, Jong focuses on Colette's weight (180lbs) and calls her obese, and continues to seem mystified by a sexy fat woman. Several other people here on LJ have pointed to vito's post and there have been a number of comments on the original post and on the referring ones. I have read many of them and am now halfway to crankypants land.

Why?

Because the point is not whether or not Colette was obese/fat/overweight, etc., damnit! The point is that it is infuriating that a woman's weight is considered so damned important, regardless of her size. The point is that a woman like Jong cannot get past the subject's weight.

I have seen several comments (not all to Vito's post) essentially saying "180lbs--that's not obese!" (actually, if you are a woman of average height, 180lbs is considered obese) and getting into discussions of what is obese and what is not, which is not very body-positive at all and is, quite frankly, bordering on the type of fat-phobia seen in Jong's initial comments.

Others have stated that Colette looked "healthy" not "obese". Really. Why the dichotomy? What exactly do people think "obese" is, other than an arbitrary label used for people above a certain weight for their height? I've got news for you folks--the label of "obese" has nothing to do with health or anything else except height to weight ratio. Arguing about what is considered obese is a losing battle, and in the end just continues to engender fat-phobia and facilitate the use of meaningless medical language in our everyday lives.

I am suprised more people couldn't get past the numbers and be horrified at what Jong was actually saying, rather than focusing on Jong's perception of Colette as "obese." And it makes me wonder if Colette had been, say, 380 lbs, and Jong had said the same things, what would the reaction be? Would Jong's comments have been more widely accepted in the extended circles here on LJ?

Arguing about whether or not someone is fat/obese/overweight does us all a disservice when we are talking about fat-phobia, body acceptance and weight diversity. Who is "fat" or "obese" or what constitutes those things is so not the point. The point is that it is so sad, frustrating and downright infuriating that it still matters far too much to far too many people, and Jong is just one of the culprits.

Comments

[datagoddess.livejournal.com]

The point is that it is infuriating that a woman's weight is considered so damned important, regardless of her size. The point is that a woman like Jong cannot get past the subject's weight.

Exactly. That's what pissed me off so badly, too. It doesn't matter what she actually weighed, it matters that it's something they seem to consider a handicap that had to be overcome.

Um, no. Sexy comes in all shapes and sizes.

[cjsmith.livejournal.com]

I thought the comment that it was crazy her size was more of an issue than the sexual relationship with her underage stepson was spot-on.

[cassidyrose.livejournal.com]

Hell yes.

[mactavish.livejournal.com]

My bigger issue was that Jong still seems obsessed. Given her daughter's health history, I'm astounded she hasn't looked into her own obsession. Or maybe she has, and had no useful results.

[cassidyrose.livejournal.com]

It amazes me but I see it all the time--parents of children with eating disorders still not getting it. It is so sad and so, so maddening.