FREE INQUIRY IN CREATIVE SOCIOLOGY Volume 38 Number 1 Spring 2010 25

"Encouraging : A Capitalist Pursuit" Bonnie Berry, PhD.,Director, Social Problems Research Group

Abstract This paper examines capitalism as it has influenced the obesity epidemic, largely by determining how fat and not-fat people respond to consumer choices offered by profit-seeking industries and service providers. After a brief address of the social meaning of size and the faced by fat people, I will describe the goods and services for purchase that both encourage and discourage fatness, all directed toward increased profits. A far more subtle social force encouraging size-related purchases is the normalization of large body size as advanced by the fat-acceptance movement and by a visible increase in the number of fat people in the US and other societies. A paradox is evident in the contradictory social messages brought on by the corporate provision of economically profitable goods and services that encourage obesity, making obesity seem socially acceptable, in contrast to the very real and enduring social barriers encountered by the people-of-size. The conclusion questions the normalization (acceptance) offat and offers avenues by which the fat majority can influence the economic market. The study of social aesthetics is an stigmatized for their physical appearance alternative way to consider social (Hudson, et al. 2007). inequality. Social aesthetics, as I use the Much of the social penalty paid for term, refers to the public reaction to not being socially-deemed attractive is physical appearance. This reaction economic, with those who are plain or shares much with other forms of social unattractive being denied employment as inequality, as seen in classism, , well as access to social networks such and . Indeed, physical appearance as the dating and marriage markets but overlaps strongly with minority statuses also educational opportunities, club such that women face more stringent memberships, and the like (Berry 2007; expectations for bodily thinness, youth, 2008). Nowhere is this inequality made and beauty than do men and are treated more visible than in the social treatment more harshly by the economic and of people-of-size (Millman 1980; Rothblum dating-marriage market for failing to live et al. 1990; Bordo 1995; Goodman 1995; up to socially imposed beauty standards Stearns 1997; Roehling 1999; Goldberg (Wann 1998; Etcoff 1999; Wolf 2002). 2000; Solovay 2000; Braziel and LeBesco Likewise, non-whites are compared 2001; Freed 2003). The present analysis unfavorably with whites in terms of attends more specifically to the physical attractiveness and often undergo economic exploitation of fat people (the cosmetic changes to surgically widen preferred term of the fat-acceptance Asian eyes and alter the shape of the movement) by corporate profit-seekers. ethnic nose, whiten dark skin, and The purposes of this paper are to raise straighten hair texture (Kaw 1994; Gilman awareness about a topic that most 1999, 2005; Blum 2003; Edwards et al. members of the public may be unaware 2004; Herring et al. 2004; Hunter 2004). (size-ism) and to raise questions about The poor face financial hurdles such as the functionality of normalizing obesity. inability to afford dental care and are thus As to the former, there is a growing but 26 FREE INQUIRY IN CREATIVE SOCIOLOGY Volume 38 Number 1 Spring 2010

still scarce academic address of the making desire since it provides for the social and physical barriers faced by sale of large-size items and services to people-of-size such as access to equal accommodate fat people's needs. But opportunities mentioned above as well capitalism also encourages size as actual physical obstacles that repression since it provides items and disallow access to buildings and modes services that promise to reduce size and of transportation. As to the latter, we instill . Thus, confusingly, we are may question whether normalization encouraged to buy fat-related products (acceptance of obesity) is a good idea, (plus-size clothing) and services (plus­ socially and personally speaking, given size resorts), thus allowing us to feel health concerns and the continuing social okay about being fat, while, at the same barriers faced by fat people. time, we are encouraged to lose weight. Since profit is the motive, it does not AMBIGUITY ABOUT SIZE matter to the industries and service There are two forms of ambiguity providers whether is surrounding the social and economic encouraged or discouraged, since money encouragement of obesity. One form of is made either way. To sum it up, ambiguity is public sentiment, with a capitalism profits from the sale of large segment of the public, though fat seatbelt extenders as well as pills. themselves, being repulsed by fat people While this is a win-win situation for the and fearful of becoming fat(ter). Many profit-seekers (clothing and furniture recognize that body size is, in large part, manufacturers, pharmaceutical genetic and that is difficult. corporations, and other entities seeking Yet, there remains the erroneous but profit from fat), and much of the public strongly-held view that fat is not only seems to accept such profit-seeking as aesthetically unappealing, but that fat a matter of economic fact, this win-win represents moral weakness, poor profit-seeking nonetheless reflects the character, sheer laziness, and gluttony ambiguity of the public's feeling about (Stearns 1997). fat. As well summarized by the A second form of ambiguity is that economist Paul Krugman (2005: 17), "fat some profit-makers (such as makers of is a fiscal issue" since the profit motive plus-size clothing) seem to be on the determines the size of our bodies and, side of fat people while others (such as simultaneously, the goods and services the pharmaceutical and medical accommodating our increased size. industries) seem to want to reduce obesity through weight loss drugs and GLOBAL/ZED PROFITS surgery (Grady 2000; Solovay 2000; Major influences in globalized obesity Egan 2002; Erman 2002; Gimlin 2002; ; are seen in the profits made by food Kolata et al. 2002; Bellafonte 2003; industries exporting their high-fat food to Pressler 2003a, 2003b; Scheiber 2003; poor countries with populations that are D'Amato 2005; Freudenheim 2005; not evolutionarily capable of metabolizing Tommasini 2005; Revill 2006). On a such food, endangering peoples superficial level, one might think that (Micronesians, Mexicans, and others) capitalism encourages size or whose cultural histories cannot fills a market-driven need and a profit- accommodate the excess fat in their FREE INQUIRY IN CREATIVE SOCIOLOGY Volume 38 Number 1 Spring 2010 27

diets (Shell 2000).An additional influence that is, a major segment of a public must in globalized obesity is the increase in come to view the minority (statistical the , decreased minority or power minority) as equal. physical activity (by choice and by denial While the fat-acceptance movement of opportunities such as safe is becoming broadly known as a streets), the abundance of high-fat fast grassroots force to be reckoned with, food, and restaurant servings of large while are changing to prohibit proportions (Critser 2003; Goode 2003). discrimination against size, and while a At the same time that this pattern of growing awareness that fat is not as fattening is occurring globally, we find an volitional as long-held, we are stuck with increase in size-tolerance movements, widespread if narrowing against particularly in the US and Europe, such the fat. The U.S. and other societies as the National Association to Advance have a long history of fat prejudice, as Fat Acceptance (www.naafa.org), the well-documented by Bardo (1995), more localized organizations such as Stearns (1997), Wann (1998), Roehling SeaFATtle (www.seafattle.org), and the (1999), Solovay (2000), Braziel and International Size Acceptance Association LeBesco (2001 ); and Huff (2001 ). And (www.size-acceptance.org). In short, there while it is true that public views on fat are signs that we encourage increased have run the gamut from reverence to body size at the same time that we revulsion, definitions of fat and not-fat profess alarm about it. At this juncture have changed over time (per insurance in time, it may serve the public to charts, a growing sophistication of recognize the conflicting goals we emit medical criteria, etc.) and cross-cultural about the growing acceptance and views on fat vary widely, it is doubtful that continuing rejection of fat. the US and most of the world will revert to a time when fatness was seen in a THE SOCIAL MEANING OF SIZE positive light, for instance, as a sign of AND SIZE-ISM good health and prosperity. The fat are a statistical majority, with approximately one-third of the US THINGS TO BUY population being obese and an additional The products made available for one-third being (Nagourney purchase by fat people include plus-size 2006; www.cdc.gov); yet they are a power clothing, plus-size furniture, diet minority. Numbers are less important supplements, seatbelt extenders, plus­ than social power (as measured primarily size caskets, and so on. The services by economic power and occupational provided to fat people include multiple prestige);witness the same phenomenon airline seats, size-friendly resorts, plastic as applied to women who are a statistical surgery (gastric bypasses, , majority while remaining a power minority and removal of loose skin), and gym with less earning power. Gaining social memberships (Berry 2005). Food power requires a significant segment of producers deserve a place of their own the population, whether they are of the in the pantheon offat-marketed products minority (women, fat, non-white, gay, to buy and will be awarded a separate disabled, and so on) category or not, section below. adhering to the n9tion of equality for all; Of the plus-size clothing offerings, it 28 FREE INQUIRY IN CREATIVE SOCIOLOGY Volume 38 Number 1 Spring 2010

would seem a good thing that ample-size such resort in Mexico, offers plus-size clothing is now offered for purchase and armless chairs, wide steps with railings that much of this clothing is as chic as in swimming pools, walk-in showers smaller-size clothing (Frater 2005). rather than bathtubs, stronger Recent larger-sized clothes offerings are hammocks, and a staff that has been deliberately not drab and not intended trained to be sensitive to size issues to hide the body, and are presently one (Chakravorty 2003). of the fastest growing segments in These all seem to be good things, apparel (Erman 2002). Plus-size apparel supportive of the reality that fat people sales have risen about 14 percent exist and have the money to buy the compared to 5.6 percent for all women's things they need in the sizes they need. clothing sales increases (Bellafante And if these products and services cost 2003). a bit more, so what? That's economic in mind, however, that plus-size reality. Well, there is reality and then clothing is often offered at a higher cost there is usury. Take the airline industry, than smaller-size clothing. Check your for example. Most airlines accommodate mail-order clothing catalogs and you will fat passengers as well as they can, find that "women's" sizes (sizes 1x-3x) loaning them seatbelt extenders, moving are priced as much as $10 more per item them to a place on the airplane where than the identical "misses" sizes. The there are two seats together to explanation for the increased charge is accommodate the larger body (see that there are more materials involved in Frater 2005 for a guide of fat-friendly the manufacturing of bigger clothes. If airlines). But one, Southwest Airlines, that logic were valid, petite and small­ has been especially noted for its size­ sized clothing would cost less than ist policies. Even if a fat person can fit medium-sized clothing. Another between the armrests, can wrap the indicator of discrimination is the fact that seatbelt around the waist, and not lap a lot of large-size clothing is nearly over into the neighboring seat, the fat always located in separate sections of passenger may be charged for an extra department stores and often exiled to seat. The decision is arbitrarily made and online shopping, indicating a continuing highly discretionary, suggesting a profit exclusion from the mainstream shopping motive (Dilley 2002; British Broadcasting experience and an instilled sense of Company 2002; Ellin 2005). shame for the wearers of such clothes (D'Amato 2005). THE FOOD INDUSTRY We also have available larger hangers A troubling global development refers upon which to hang our bigger clothes, to the profit motive of food industries as bigger bedding, office chairs built with visited not just upon the U.S. but also heavy-gauge steel and high-tension other . The food that we eat in support, automobiles with extra inches the U.S. and the food that we export to of elbow room in the interiors, and extra­ other cultures is cheaply produced and large. coffins that can hold up to 700 high in fat content (such as Spam). Such pounds (Scheiber 2003; Pressler 2003). food has caused looming health hazards Another entrepreneurial venture is "size­ on our own and on cultures that, friendly" resorts. Freedom Paradise, one physiologically, can not handle the FREE INQUIRY IN CREATIVE SOCIOLOGY Volume 38 Number 1 Spring 2010 29

change in diet, notably people in convenience and fast foods (French fries, transition, such as Micronesians, Native margarine, pastries). As with HFCS, it Americans, aboriginal Australians, and has the added advantage of keeping Polynesians. Such people are subject products "fresh" for a long time thus to dramatically altered and altering ending the need to replenish supermarket environmefltS regarding food sources shelves and junk food machines. and availability, migration patterns, and Regardless of the disadvantage for health economic instability (Shell 2001 ). and size, price was the determinant in Clearly, there is a great deal of money palm oil's use: the concern at the U.S. to be made by selling to Asians Department of Agriculture, which was and importing high-sugar, high-fat food thoroughly behind the development of to Micronesians. Better yet, from the HFCS and palm oil, was "pure farm profit-motive point of view, we can economics" (Critser 2003: 10-11 ). The manufacture food more cheaply by using same goes for· partially hydrogenated ingredients (like high fructose corn syrup vegetable oils, used in fried food and palm oil) that are unhealthy to preparation (fried chicken, French fries) consume and that dangerously increase and food processing (tortilla chips, our body weight, forsaking the traditional margarine, pies, microwave popcorn). and more-expensive-to-produce ingredients Though aware of the health hazards, like cane sugar and vegetable oil. In the many restaurants continue to use 1970s, food scientists developed a partially hydrogenated oils (instead of method by which to make a sweetener vegetable, canola, and olive oils} as a called high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), money-saver: it doesn't spoil and it can made from corn. Importantly, HFCS is be used repeatedly (Johnson 2006). six times sweeter than sugar and the Another good way to make a buck in cost of producing this HFCS is markedly the food industry is to increase portion less than that of ordinary sugar. size, variously called "supersizing" or Moreover, HFCS ensures a long shelf­ "value marketing." Value marketing life, allowing high-caloric junk foods (as became an effective tool to increase found in vending machines) to be kept sales and profits at fast food and other fresh-tasting for along time with no need restaurants and at movie theater which to replace them frequently (thus saving offers huge bags of popcorn at a small money). Soda companies went from a price (Critser 2003). Not surprisingly, it 50/50 blend of sugar and HFCS to 100 was found that if people were offered percent HFCS because it's cheaper, more food at a low price, they would buy never mind that it is health-hazardous, it. So portion sizes increased, prices skewing the metabolism toward fat were lowered, food manufacturers made storage (Critser 2003). a lot of money, and people became fatter Likewise, palm oil, aka "tree lard," (Goode 2003). unlike vegetable oil, is chemically similar Public schools rely on profit-oriented to beef tallow and is a highly saturated food corporations (Pizza Hut, Coca Cola, fat. It is also incredibly cheap to produce. candy companies, etc.) to provide Palm oil, transformed into a viable educational materials (for instance commercial fat in the 1970s, is widespread books) in exchange for the opportunity in usage today in the manufacture of to sell high-fat food in the schools. Due 30 FREE INQUIRY IN CREATIVE SOCIOLOGY Volume 38 Number 1 Spring 2010

to budget cuts, schools can not afford and thus their vision improves), basic needs, like books. Enter to plastic surgery (when their bodies McDonalds and other purveyors of high­ shrink and the excess skin is removed). fat foods, risking school children's health Plastic surgery alone can cost $25,000 in exchange for profit (Critser 2003). for skin removal. Plus, the dieters pay rent, set up temporary workplaces, and SECONDARY SERVICES some purchase permanent housing (Saul AND PRODUCTS 2005). By-products or products that are purchased for fat people include plus­ MEDICAL AND PHARMACEUTICAL size medical equipment (stretchers, PROFITS blood pressure cuffs, and mobile toilets Some fat people are willing to undergo that do not collapse under the weight of fat-reduction treatment in the form of diet large bodies). For example, medical pill prescriptions and fat-reducing equipment manufacturers have super­ surgeries (gastric bypasses, liposuction, sized stretchers, with thick aluminum plastic surgery to remove the abdominal frames, bulkier connectors and extra "apron" and other loose skin after weight spine supports to create stretchers with loss, etc.; see, for example, Kuczynski a capacity of 650 pounds (Associated 2006). Another high-profit treatment is Press 2003). These secondary fat­ the inpatient weight reduction programs relevant products are manufactured for requiring long-term hospitalization for purchase by those who are involved with "drastic" weight loss, to reduce hundreds fat people in some service-provider way; of pounds. thus, these goods and services are Pharmaceutical companies, never purchased by individuals and organizations known for their altruism, develop diet targeting services toward fat people. "remedies" to presumably aid in weight Residential diet programs are an loss as well as "treatments" for fat­ excellent example of secondary services related medical symptoms (diabetes, for and products for sale to fat people. instance). To wax draconian, ifthere is Durham, North Carolina is the diet capital money to be made in the treatment of of the world, the hometown of the Rice diabetes and other fat-related illnesses, Diet, the Duke Diet, and Structure it seems reasonable that the industry House. These diet programs themselves would not want to ruin a good thing and are quite expensive, as witnessed by actually reduce the fat. Weight loss Jean Renfro Anspaugh's intriguing programs, pharmaceutical "remedies" for ethnography of her experience at the obesity, and weight-loss surgery in the Rice House (Anspaugh 2001 ). But the name of health care, even if undertaken diet programs are just the starting point with the best health-care intentions, are for the money to be made in local profitable pursuits. Given that these Durham. Dieters in Durham pump more regimens often are ineffective, perhaps than $51 million per year into the local because they are not accompanied by economy. The secondary spending, behavioral or lifestyle changes or beyond the diet center fees, includes because of genetic predisposition, one new sneakers (when the dieters' feet must question how different they are shrink), new eyeglasses (when their from obviously bogus treatments such FREE INQUIRY IN CREATIVE SOCIOLOGY Volume 38 Number 1 Spring 2010 31

as diet supplements and fat-reducing unconcerned with their weight belts as advertised on television. (Nagourney 2006). As judged by the capitalist market CONCLUSION support for increased body size, as I Fat is an aesthetics and moral issue, have described herein, we may conclude as well as a health issue, with fat still that fat and not-fat members of society being seen as socially repellent, physically are coming to view fat as the norm; or unattractive, and as a personal matter that fat people view themselves as normal of self-discipline. If we come to see fat relative to others. We find that a greater as merely a physical "difference," we can number of fat people are not viewing then come to better grips with capitalism's themselves as unusual, as they look influence on body size. around and find themselves surrounded by other fat people. Moreover, they see Normalization no reason to alter their appearance "Normalization" is a phenomenon because they are "normal" (Stenson relevant to, though not exactly the same 2005). All the better for marketers since as, equality. We are coming to view the they can profit from all these newly­ fat, by virtue oftheirnumbers, as average normal people. lffat people see no need or normal. Fat people are, in fact, average to buy gym equipment and low-fat food, and normal, numerically-speaking and as they can easily convert their purchasing measured by national studies but not in power to buying sedentary entertainment the manner in which size plays out in devices (like TVs), order in high-fat pizza, everyday social life. Fat people are while wearing plus-size sweats. None marginalized in real and subtle ways by of this is to say that being fat is "okay" virtue of physical barriers and social or not okay. It is to say that being fat is barriers. common and thus catered to as a source Fat children are increasingly seen as of profit. common, and, while their size and accompanying illnesses are not accepted Fat Consumers: A Grand New Market by the medical community, they are Given that fat people comprise a increasingly accepted as such by majority of the US population, they are broader society as common if not not a niche market (Erman 2002; admired (Weil 2005). As to public opinion Chakravorty 2003; Pressler 2003b). about the preponderance of fat people in Thus, in true market-forces tradition, the population, the Pew Research Center recognizing that fat people need the reports that nine out of ten Americans same things as thin people do, a huge believe that their fellow Americans are market has opened up. As a result, we fat. Amusingly, only four of ten of these have a demand for fat-relevant products and same respondents believe themselves to services and this demand has joyously be fat, which defies logic since they view been met by manufacturers, retailers, and 90 percent of everybody else as fat. One service providers. Naturally, businesses might infer from these figures that those supply plus-size items such as larger who do not count themselves as fat, towels, larger beds, larger clothes, larger assuming that they really are fat, realize clothes hangers, larger jewelry, larger that they are not supermodels but are furniture, larger coffins, seatbelt extenders, 32 FREE INQUIRY IN CREATIVE SOCIOLOGY V9/ume 38 Number 1 Spring 2010

larger umbrellas, scales that can weigh BIBLIOGRAPHY up to 1000 pounds.and workout videotapes Anspaugh, Jean Renfro. 2001. Fat Uke Us. for fat people. Durham, NC: Windows on History Press. While some might say that we need Associated Press. 2003. "Manufacturers a solution to fatness, we have instead Supersize Stretchers." MSNBC entrepreneurs making money from (http://www.msnbc.com), October 19. fatness. And that is not necessarily Bellafante, Ginia. 2003. ''Young and Chubby: inappropriate. Recognizing fat people's What's Heavy About That?" New York needs and desires as legitimate is Times, January 26, Section 9, pp. 1, 2. evident in this economic movement to Berry, Bonnie. 2004. 'The Power of Looks: meet those needs. I would propose, An Historical Analysis of Social however, that we extend this recognition Aesthetics and Status Gain." Presented beyond material needs. at the annual meeting of the Society for The fat-acceptance movement has the Study of Social Problems.August 14, already begun to make clear to various , CA. industries, via grassroots activities, that Berry, Bonnie. 2005. "Social Aesthetics: people-of-size are in the majority and they Reconstructions of Body Size." Presented do make consumer choices; the wise at the annual meeting of the Society for manufacturers, advertisers and service the Study of Social Problems.August 13, providers have responded to this Philadelphia, PA. important marketing fact. It would be Berry, Bonnie. 2007. Beauty : helpful if we could clarify our stance on Discrimination and Social Power. fat and rid ourselves, as a society, of our Westport, CT: Praeger/Greenwood. ambiguity about fat acceptability. In a Berry, Bonnie. 2008. The Power of way, the capitalist support for fatness Looks: Social Stratification of supports the notion that fat is an Physical Appearance. Hampshire, acceptable or even a good thing, requiring England: Ashgate. size-friendly products and services. Yet, Blum, Virginia L. 2003. Flesh Wounds: The we as a society retain negative views of Culture of Cosmetic Surgery. Berkeley, fat as a bad thing, a health hazard, an CA: University of California Press aesthetic stigmata, and a sign of Bardo, Susan. 1995. Unbearable Weight: personal weakness. The more tangible , Western Culture, and the evidence, though, are the fat-relevant Body. Berkeley, CA: University of goods and services newly provided. California Press. Intentional or not, this profit-seeking Braziel, Jana Evans and LeBesco, Kathleen activity may be working toward size (editors). 2001. Bodies out of Bounds: acceptance. Fatness and Transgression. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. British Broadcasting Company. 2002. "Fat Flyers Face Higher Travel Costs." BBC News (www.news.bbc.co.uk), June 20. Chakravorty, Jui. 2003. "Catering to Obese Becoming Big Business." Reuters (/www.reuters.com), Oct 4. FREE INQUIRY IN CREATIVE SOCIOLOGY Volume 38 Number 1 Spring 2010 33

Critser, Greg. 2003. Fat/and: How and Risks." New York Times, May Americans Became the Fattest People 27: C1, C2. in the World. New York, NY: Houghton Gilman, Sander L. 1999. Making the Mifflin Company. Body Beautiful: A Cultural History of D'Amato, Suzanne. 2005. ''Young Women Aesthetic Surgery. Princeton, NJ: Face Fashion's Larger Problem." Princeton University Press. MS NBC (http:// Gilman, Sander L. 2005. "Ethnicity and www.msnbc.msn.com), May 31. Aesthetic Surgery." Pp. 110-37 in Dilley, Ryan. 2002. "Does My Bum Look Aesthetic Surgery, edited by A. Big in this Boeing?" BBC News (http:/ Taschen. Kain, Germany: Taschen /www.bbc.co.uk), July 5. Publishing. Edwards, Korie, Katrina M. Carter­ Gimlin, Debra L. 2002. Body Work: Tellison, and Cedric Herring. 2004. Beauty and Self-Image in American "For Richer, For Poorer, Whether Culture. Berkeley, CA: University of Dark or Light: Skin Tone, Marital California Press. Status and Spouse's Earnings." Pp. Goldberg, Carey. 2000. "Fat People Say 65-81 in Skin/Deep: How Race and an Intolerant World Condemns Them Complexion Matter in the "Color-Blind" on First Sight." New York Times, Era, edited by C. Herring, V.M. Keith, November 5: A30. and H.D. Horton. Chicago, IL: Goodman, W. Charisse. 1995. The University of Illinois Press. Invisible Woman: Confronting Egan, Timothy. 2002. "For Image­ Weight Prejudice in America. Conscious Boys, Steroids are Carlsbad, CA: Gurze Books. Powerful Lure." New York Times, Goode, Erica. 2003. 'The Gorge Yourself November 22: A 1, A22. Environment." New York Times, July Ellin, Abby. 2005. "Tough for the Thin, 22, pp. 01, 07. Tougher for the Hefty." New York Grady, Denise. 2000. "Exchanging Times, February 15, p. C9. Obesity's Risks for Surgery's." New Erman, Michael. 2002. "Big Kids' York Times, October 12:A1, A24. Clothing Becoming Big Business." Herring, Cedric, Verna M. Keith, and Reuters (http://www.reuters.com), Hayward Derrick Horton, eds. 2004. August 3. Skin/Deep: How Race and Etcoff, Nancy. 1999. Survival of the Complexion Matter in the "Color-Blind'' Prettiest: The Science of Beauty. Era. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois New York, NY: Anchor Books. Press. Frater, Lara. 2005. Fat Chicks Rule. Hudson, Kenneth, Jean Stockard, and Brooklyn, NY: IG Publishing. Zach Ramberg. 2007 'The Impact of Freed, Gwendolyn. 2003. "Matters of Socioeconomic Status and Race­ Size at Work." Seattle Post­ Ethnicity on Dental Health." Intelligencer (http:// Sociological Perspectives 50: 7-25. www.seattlepi.nwsource.com), Huff, Joyce L. 2001. "A 'Horror of November 10. Corpulence': Interrogating Freudenheim, Milt. 2005. "Another Bantingism and Mid-Nineteenth­ Danger of Overweight: Insurers Balk Century Fat Phobia." Pp. 39-59 in at Bariatric Operations, Citing Costs Bodies ·Out of Bounds: Fatness and 34 FREE INQUIRY IN CREATIVE SOCIOLOGY Volume 38 Number 1 Spring 2010

Transgression, edited by J.E. Braziel and Revill, Jo. 2006. "NHS Must Pay for Fat K. LeBesco. Berkeley, CA: University of Children to Get Surgery." The Guardian California Press. (www.observer.guardian.co.uk), Nov19. Hunter, Margaret. 2004. "Light, Bright, Roehling, Mark V. 1999. 'Weight-Based and Almost White: The Advantages Discrimination in Employment: and Disadvantages of Light Skin." Pp. Psychological and Legal Aspects." 22-44 in Skin/Deep: How Race and Personnel Psychology 52: 969-1016. Complexion Matter in the "Color­ Rothblum, Esther, Pam Brand, Carol Miller, Blind" Era. Edited by C. Herring, V.M. and Helen Oetjen. 1990. 'Toe Relationship Keith, and H.D. Horton. Chicago, IL: BetweenObesity,Employment University of Illinois Press. Discrimination,& Employment-Related Johnson, Linda A. 2006. 'Would You Like a Victimization." Journal of Vocational Heart Attack With That?" Seattle Post­ Behavior37: 251-66. Intelligent (WWl,\/.seattlepi.nwsource.com), Saul, Stephanie. 2005. "Penny-Wise, Not April 13. Pound-Foolish." New York Times, May Kaw, E. 1994. "'Opening' Faces: The 19, pp. C1, C13. of Cosmetic Surgery and Scheiber, Dave. 2003. "Companies Super­ Asian American Women." Pp. 241- Size Products to Fit a GrowingPublic's 65 in Many Mirrors: Body Images and Needs." Seattle Post-Intelligencer Social Relations, edited by N. Sault. (www.seattlepi.nwsource.com), Oct27. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Shell, Ellen Ruppel. 2001. "New World University Press. Syndrome." The Atlantic Monthly. Kolata, Gina, Jere Longman, Tim Weiner, 287: 50-53. and Timothy Egan. 2002. "With No Solovay, Sondra. 2000. Tipping the Answers on Risks, steroid Users Still Sea/es of Justice: Fighting Weight­ Say'Yes" New York Times, December based Discrimination. Amherst, NY: 2:A1,A19. Prometheus Books. Krugman, Paul. 2005. "Girth of a Nation." Stearns, Peter. N. 1997. Fat History: New York Times, July 4, p. A17. Bodies .and Beauty in the Modern Kuczynski, Alex. 2006. Beauty Junkies: West. New York, NY: New York Inside Our $15 Billion Obsession with University Press. Cosmetic Surgery, New York, NY: stenson, Jaqueline. 2005. "Couch Potato Doubleday. Contentment." MSNBC (http:// Millman, Marcia. 1980. Such a Pretty www.msnbc.msn.com), February.a. Face: Being Fat in America. New Tommasini, Anthony. 2005. 'With Surgery, York, NY: Norton. Soprano Shes a Brunnhilde Body." New Nagourney, Eric. 2006. "Everybody York Times, March 27:A1,A19. Except My Slender Friends and Me." Wann, Marilyn. 1998. Fat!So? Berkeley, CA New York Times, April 18, p. 08. Ten Speed Press. Pressler, MargaretWebb.2003a. "America's Weil, Elizabeth. 2005. "Heavy Questions." Great Big Challenge." Washington Post NYTimes Magazine, Jan 2, pp. 32-39. (www.washingtonpost.com), Nov 16. Wolf, Naomi. 2002. The Beauty Myth: How Pressler, Margaret Webb. 2003b. "Big Images of Beauty Are Used Against .Business." Washington Post National Women. NewYork,NY: Harper Perennial. WeeklyEdition, November24-30: 19.