Also Susan Bordo's book Unbearable Weight, which tackles the feminist/gendered issues raised by the anti-fat crusade.
It's interesting how markers of wealth and poverty shift or do not shift over time; being tanned was once a dead giveaway of one's inferior status as an outdoor labourer, and well-bred gents and ladies cultivated a ghastly pallor to substantiate their wealth and rank. Now ghastly pallor is the sign of the factory worker or office drone and people pay big bucks and risk skin cancer to get an "instant tan" under UV lamps so that they can look like a sunbathing Person of Leisure.
At one point, as recently as Dickens if not earlier, plumpness was a sign of affluence and health, and hence plump people were described as "jolly," comfortable, and attractive. Now it is often a sign of malnutrition due to low income that restricts an industrial-worldista to a diet of corn products and other greases and sugars. However, as pointed out above, for complex reasons (despite social "tells" such as "you can never be too rich or too thin" we hang onto a perception of "fat" as overnourished, greedy, lazy, wealthy, as in "fat cat"). Fat is also, of course, considered Unmanly (bodily softness, eeee-yew!). So there's all kind of cultural whammy riding on the BS spewed by the poison-pens at Heritage Foundation... The difference between theory and practise in practise ...
However, as pointed out above, for complex reasons (despite social "tells" such as "you can never be too rich or too thin") we hang onto a perception of "fat" as overnourished, greedy, lazy, wealthy, as in "fat cat". The difference between theory and practise in practise ...
At one point, as recently as Dickens if not earlier, plumpness was a sign of affluence and health, and hence plump people were described as "jolly," comfortable, and attractive. Now it is often a sign of malnutrition due to low income that restricts an industrial-worldista to a diet of corn products and other greases and sugars. However, as pointed out above, for complex reasons (despite social "tells" such as "you can never be too rich or too thin") we hang onto a perception of "fat" as overnourished, greedy, lazy, wealthy, as in "fat cat". Fat is also, of course, considered Unmanly (bodily softness, eeee-yew!). So there's all kind of cultural whammy riding on the BS spewed by the poison-pens at Heritage Foundation...
Visiting poorer parts of Africa with a group of westerners is revealing. Suddenly the more corpulent members of the group are viewed as richer, having higher status. Fat is wealth, which in men is very manly indeed. Thin is poor, sickly. Sounds kind of feminine.
I write with a group because then you carry your internal status system with you all that more clearly. The clash is enlightening as it illuminates your own prejudices and internalised values.
You just have to look at early modern European painting to see the same pattern in action. We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
