'Fatty' faux pas

Last week, Marie Claire Magazine’s Maura Kelly wrote a blog post on the magazine’s
website in response to a recently-premiered TV show called “Mike & Molly.”

This show is about an overweight couple who meet at a support group for overeaters and fall into a physically romantic relationship.

The article was sensitively named “Should ‘Fatties’ Get a Room (Even on TV?),” and to illuminate the freelancer’s perspective a bit, she said:

“I think I’d be grossed out if I had to watch two characters with rolls and rolls of fat kissing each other. ...because I’d be grossed out if I had to watch them doing anything. To be brutally honest, even in real life, I find it aesthetically displeasing to watch a very, very fat person simply walk across a room.”

Poorly articulated, completely unfiltered and enormously ignorant, this article received an onslaught of negative responses far beyond the comments section of the post.

An online army of body image protectors retaliated not only to her offensive and elitist words, but also to her remarks later in the piece that stated so pointedly, “I think obesity is something that most people have a ton of control over. It’s something they can change, if only they put their minds to it.”

Many of us can agree that her comments were poorly phrased, uneducated and wildly out of line. Although I am as abashed as the rest of the Marie Claire readers, I would like to inquire further as to whether this article could have come at a worse time.

In the past decade or so, the U.S. has made immense strides in redefining what the media perceives as a perfect body image, with magazines embracing natural or “unconventional beauty,” and building bridges to what seems to be the year of the plus-size model in fashion magazines.  

As we grow more and more aware in welcoming all shapes and sizes in the media world, Kelly could barely rip a hole in the patchwork of this movement.

However, Marie Claire’s Editor-in-Chief Joanna Coles somewhat dismissed reactions to the article by saying that Kelly’s writing is merely “provocative,” just grinding a heel into the toe of our efforts.

Unfortunately, the magazine was horrendously outnumbered, receiving 28,000 e-mails with not-so-positive responses. Last week, a group of body-sensitive individuals protested outside Marie Claire’s offices. It brings me comfort that America knows exactly where its moral values are.

Marie Claire is (or was) supposed to be for a woman with “more than a pretty face,” so one has to pose the question, “Where do their responsibilities lie?”  

Whether it’s Lifetime’s “Drop Dead Diva,” ABC’s “Ugly Betty” or its not-so-successful kid-sister, “Huge,” the rise of reprioritizing body image in TV and elsewhere should have been hint enough to Kelly that now (or ever, really) was not a wonderful time to bash obese people.  

Reeling this issue even closer, Kelly’s stab at a person’s “rolls and rolls of fat” exhibits clear undertones of bullying. This is irrelevant in today’s news lines as public figures from Hillary Clinton to Katy Perry are contributing on the “It gets better” project against the epidemic of gay teen suicides.

Kelly’s apology was posted later on the site, and it reeks of insincerity, as she “sorely regret(s) that it upset people so much.”  

Reading this apology, it is impossible not to think about Arkansas school board member Clint McCance after his internet rage against homosexuals. Or Juan Williams’ regretted racially insensitive slip-up on Fox.  

I do not think that Maura Kelly and her supervisors are violent bigots as much as I think they’re just dumb. These examples yield a certain “What were they thinking?” quality. It is baffling to see how public figures cannot understand the consequences or  potential harm of their actions.

Whether it’s McCance, Williams, Kelly or her editors, consequences should be weighed before an opinion is vocalized, as public reactions will be anything but forgiving.


E-mail: ftirado@indiana.edu