Header

Saturday, 22 April 2017

Cancer Research UK's
fat shaming campaign



I guess that, once again, body shaming only applies to the non-fat people that the commercialisation of fat positivity was watered down to represent. Body positivity, once again, doesn't apply to the demographic that created it.

BU_L__IT. There's no factual standing to this campaign and here's why: 

1) Obesity does not cause cancer. If it did, every obese person would have cancer. To cause something is to make it happen. CRUK have, infactually, chosen to use this word as a scaremongering tactic. It's similar to saying eating expired food causes illness, it doesn't; it may result in illness but it does not directly, and always, cause illness.

2) BMI has already been proven to be inaccurate and misleading. This has been the case since as far back as 2013, yet doctors still use it and CRUK also uses it to define obesity and then goes on to state that all overweight or obese people are at 'greater risk' compared with people of 'normal' weight (which, again, is not always the case).

3) Obesity is associated with the potential increased risk of some types of cancer. CRUK literally say this in their factsheet; it's just not a great line for shock tactics because, well, it isn't shocking. I think we're pretty well aware of the potential increased risks of ill health relating to obesity (as well as the catagorically proven increased risk of poor physical and mental health from fatphobia/shaming/bias). We're not living under a rock or in complete denial. It's just aother stick approach to the perceived 'obesity crisis' in which obesity is the source of all of the worlds issues.

4) Fat doesn't kill. As Melissa A. Fabello highlighted in her article for Everyday Feminism, entitled 11 Reasons Your Phony ‘Concern’ for Fat People’s Health Has Got to Stop, The 2004 study that implied this was later proven to have bolstered the figures by 94%. "It’s much easier to fear-monger by telling people they’re likely to die".

5)  This is a deliberate, calculated and unethical misuse of research.

Wednesday, 12 April 2017

It's Not Alright, Nike

Not everyone is going to be 'happy' with this post so I'm going to just jump straight to the facts and deal with the people pleasing afterwards, alright? Here goes nothing...

Exhibit A: Nike's standard size chart
Exhibit B: Nike's plus size size chart
Exhibit C: ASOS Curve's size chart























Now, firstly, I find X sizing ambiguous. Secondly, I haven't the faintest idea how one size can have a 4" range (example: I have an approx 50" bust which usually makes me around a size 24, however a 46" or 54" would likely be a size 22 or 26, not 24). This is why I've included ASOS Curve's size chart for comparison.

That's not all. You may wonder why I've included the standard size chart - look at the measurements of the XXL and then look at the 1X; yep, they're exactly the same. That makes the 'plus size range' actually only two additional sizes, not three as it implies.

So we've got a 'plus size range' that *might* fit up to a size 26 but who can be sure, and claims to be an additional 3 sizes to their standard range and isn't. It doesn't stop there...

Not only do Nike want to falsely make their efforts more appealing, they want to charge you a fat tax for the privilege. Granted there's not a price difference in all items and the difference does vary, but this, quite frankly, is taking the piss. There is no world in which you can justify a £10 price increase on the exact same item.

Fellow fat activist, Mel, agrees: "As far as I'm concerned its not a 'scoop' or anything that Nike have now started doing plus sizes; plus size fashion is actually quite prolific these days to a size 24 and its clear they've just seen the market is growing and wanted to jump on it. I'm mad and always will be mad that fatties above that arbitrary size are *still* not getting the opportunities those of smaller are getting.

Its systemic fatphobia that brands have decided that a size 24 is the max they can 'socially responsibly' go to and I find the idea that we are to accept that, for fear of looking ungrateful, at best totally ridiculous and at worst a direct attack on fatties size 26 and above. They shouldn't have to accept the bones thrown to them while people smaller are reaping the benefits of increased visibility.

Fat liberation is uncomfortable and you have to say and do uncomfortable things sometimes, even if it alienates you. Spinning it as an attack on people doing their jobs is willful ignorance; I'm absolutely fine with blogging as a career but when they try to silence dissent to fit in with their brand loyalty they can fuck right off!"

Mel added: "On a side note, the conversation I've seen about it being 'workout' clothing for fatter people somehow making it a purer, better range is grossly fatphobic to me. Fat people are only allowed to exist when we're proving that our bodies are temporary.

There are fat people who engage in exercise and want workout gear to fit them, and then there are fat people who don't exercise at all but just like the athliesure aesthetic, and then there are fat people who like none of that stuff. All three groups deserve access to clothing that they find attractive/affordable etc." Word! 

I said I'd come back to the people pleasing, didn't I? Well, I might've told a little white lie; you know me, I'm not about people pleasing. There seems to be this unwritten rule that because a highly desirable brand collaborates with well-known bloggers and/or models on what they refer to as being a 'plus size range' we're all supposed to jump for joy; more importantly, if we don't we're being unsupportive.

Where and how people earn money (or exposure, I guess) is their own business and not openly congratulating individuals on their successful campaigns does not equate to sour grapes. In fact I was really chuffed to see Danie and Grace in this campaign and think they look damn fan-fucking-tastic, but I can't dismiss the flaws in this 'plus size range' which lie entirely with the brand and not their campaign representatives in any way.

Now, hopefully I've made that clear enough to keep people off of my back, although the fact that this *still* needs constant explanation is quite frankly exhausting.

Saturday, 4 February 2017

Review: Back in the Blogging
Game with Lovedrobe

Well well, it's been a while, hasn't it? Blogging has been pretty much a non-event for me for the past year or so; in fact I only posted 5 times last year. I've taken some time out, intentionally and otherwise, to reflect and revise. One of the many conclusions that I've come to is that the world needs and deserves more fat babe representation, and so here I am (again), bringing you a funky mix of politics and plus size fashion.

Where better to start than with a review? I've known about Lovedrobe for quite some time now but have yet to purchase from them, mainly as I felt that their beautiful dresses weren't really something that I could pull off outside of a special occasion, but when they got in touch offering to gift me some items to review I thought I'd give them a go.

Their items come in sizes 16-28. I'm usually a 24/26 (top/bottom) and was advised by some plus size pals to size up, so I went for a 26 in the 'wrapover dress' in blue (product code: D00698NAVYMULTI, £49.00) and a 26/28 in the 'pleated dress' (product code: GBL920, £79.00). The wrapover dress I should've got a 24 in but it's wearable (and if you're large chested you may well need the extra room unlike me) and the pleated dress is spot on.

I opted for the wrapover dress as it's suitable for work and the pleated dress as it could be dressed up or down. They're both comfortable and good quality as far as I can tell. Honestly, I think the prices are quite high and not what I'd usually pay, but they do have a rather crackin' sale section.

PS: They offer free standard UK delivery and 10% off your first order with the code 'FIRST10'.