Body positivity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_positivity

The sculpture of two women in bronze, Jag tänker på mig själv - Växjö ( 'I am thinking of myself - Växjö') by Marianne Lindberg De Geer, 2005, outside of the art museum of Växjö, Sweden. It depicts one thin woman and one fat woman and demonstrates society's infatuation with outward appearances. The sculpture has been a source of controversy in town, with both statues being vandalized and repaired during 2006.

Body positivity is a social movement focused on the acceptance of all bodies, regardless of size, shape, skin tone, gender, and physical abilities, while challenging present-day beauty standards as an undesirable social construct. Proponents focus on the appreciation of the functionality and health of the human body, instead of its physiological appearance.

This is similar to the concept of body neutrality, that focuses on a similar concept.

Viewpoints

Elizabeth Smith Miller, best known for being the first woman to wear the costume of Turkish pantaloons and knee-length skirts. She contributed to the Victorian Dress Reform, a specific event that shaped the modern body positivity movement.

Body-positive advocates believe that size, like race, gender, sexuality, and physical capability, is one of the many ways that our bodies are placed in a power and desirability hierarchy. In other words, judgments about one's physical appearance inherently place one on a certain rung of a ladder that rates and values one's desirability, effectively increasing or reducing one's power in society. The movement aims to challenge unrealistic ideals of physical attractiveness, build positive body image, and improve self-confidence. A central belief advocated is that beauty is a construct of society and that this construct should not determine one's confidence or self-worth. Individuals are encouraged to love themselves to the fullest while not only accepting but even embracing their physical traits.

Body positivity has roots in the fat acceptance movement as well as the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance. Body positivity differs from fat acceptance in that it is all encompassing and inclusive of all body types, whereas fat acceptance only advocates for individuals considered to be obese or overweight. The movement argues that neither fat-shaming nor skinny-shaming is acceptable, and that all body types can and should be celebrated.

Although body positivity is perceived as the celebration of one's physical appearance as it is, women are highly motivated to advocate the normalization of body hair, bodily fluids, menstruation, and to challenge preconceived ideas regarding a woman's appearance.

History

Main article: Fat Acceptance Movement

Victorian Dress Reform Movement (1850s–1890s)

As part of the first wave of feminism from the 1850s-1890s, the Victorian Dress Reform Movement aimed to put an end to the trend of women having to modify their bodies through use of corsets and tightlacing in order to fit the societal standard of tiny waistlines. A minority of women participated in this tradition of conformity, but often ended up facing ridicule whether or not they were successful at shrinking their waistline. The practice of tight-lacing proved to have many negative health risks, and was also extremely uncomfortable for women who partook. Women were mocked for their egotism if they were not able to shrink their waistline, and they were criticized for too small a waistline if they were successful. This instilled a feeling of defeat in women during these times, as nothing they did seemed to satisfy their male counterparts. As part of the Victorian Dress Reform Movement, women also fought for their right to dress in pants. Acceptance of all body types – regardless of waist measurements – was the major theme of the Victorian Dress Reform Movement, and this was the first movement of its kind.

First wave (1960s)

The origins of the body positivity movement date back to the Fat Acceptance movement of the 1960s. The idea of ending fat-shaming served as the seed of a larger project of accepting and celebrating all bodies and body types.

In 1967, New York radio host Steve Post held a "fat-in" in Central Park. This event involved a group of people who were partaking while holding posters of a famous thin woman and setting diet books on fire. He described the purpose of the event "was to protest discrimination against the fat." This moment is often cited as the beginning of the Fat Acceptance movement. Five months after the "fat-in", Lew Louderback composed an essay entitled "More People Should be Fat!" as a result of him witnessing the discrimination his wife experienced for her size. The essay shed light on the discrimination fat people experience in America and the culture surrounding fat-shaming. Louderback's contribution inspired the creation of the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance (NAAFA) in 1969 by Bill Fabrey, with the mission of ending discrimination based on body weight.

Second wave (1990s)

The second wave of the body positivity movement prioritized providing people of all sizes a place where they could comfortably come together and exercise. There were programs being made specifically for overweight people, such as Making Waves. Home exercise programs like Genia Pauli Haddon and Linda DeMarco's home exercise video series Yoga For Round Bodies were also made for those who were not comfortable joining a wellness community. During the 90's, dangers in dieting were found, mostly saying that it was ineffective and caused more physical and psychological problems, and did not actually solve anything. Therefore, people sought help from dieting. They wanted to learn how to eat again. Chronic dieting had not proven to be effective. Dieting had been used as a ploy to get people's money and proven to not actually work, especially in the long term.

Third wave (2010s)

The third wave of the body positivity movement arose around 2012 largely as a response to the increase in social media culture and advertisements. The rise of Instagram inspired a debate about cultural beauty standards, and the body positivity movement arose as a response and argument in favor of embracing all body types, loving, and feeling confident about one's own body even with any flaws. Since 2012, there has been a heightened presence of the movement, although corporations have capitalized on the sentiments in order to sell products.

The movement challenged ideals including unblemished skin and slim "beach bodies". Model and feminist Tess Holliday founded '@EffYourBeautyStandards', which brought an outpour of support to the body positivity movement. After founding the movement, the size-26 Holliday was signed to Milk Management, a large model agency in Europe, as their first model over size 20. Instagram has been utilized as an advertising platform for the movement since. Pioneers connect with brands and advertisers to promote the movement. In 2016, Mattel released a new line of Barbie dolls under the name Fashionistas with three different body shapes, seven skin colors, twenty-two eye colors and twenty-four hairstyles to be more inclusive. Additionally, in the spring 2019 New York Fashion Week, a total of 49 models that were considered plus-size made an appearance in 12 shows. These plus-size models were also hired to be featured on fashion campaigns as well as magazine covers.

Psychology

The body positivity movement aims to change societal and individual perceptions of weight, size, and appearance to be more accepting of all bodies regardless of their diverse characteristics. An individual's perception of their body can greatly influence their mental health and overall well-being, particularly in teenagers. Poor body image, also known as body dissatisfaction, has been linked to a range of physical and mental health problems including anorexia, bulimia, depression, body image disturbance, and body dysmorphic disorder. Partakers are encouraged to view self-acceptance and self-love as traits that dignify the person.

The movement advocates against determining self-worth based on physical appearance or perceptions of one's own beauty. In the field of psychology, this is referred to as appearance-contingent self-worth, and can be highly detrimental to an individual's mental health. The degree to which one feels proud of their physical appearance is referred to as appearance self-esteem. People who fall under the appearance-contingent self-worth umbrella put great effort into looking their best so that they feel their best. This is can be beneficial when an individual feels that they look good, but is extremely negative and anxiety-inducing when they do not.

Inclusion

The body positivity movement focuses largely on women, recognizing that women face more societal pressure to conform to beauty standards than men. Eating disorders are more common in women due to this social phenomenon. Nevertheless, men may face societal pressures to fit into a masculine physical ideal. Qualities that fit that mold are height, rectus abdominis muscle or "six pack abs", a broad upper body, muscular arms, shoulders, pectoral muscles, genital shape and size, etc. Men may face anxiety and pressure to shape their bodies to fit this mold and may struggle with body image disorders, including body dysmorphia, anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa. Eating disorders in men are less commonly diagnosed and therefore less publicized. Although there is an underdiagnosis of body dysmorphic disorder, the clinical symptoms can affect people of any gender. While body positivity has largely been discussed with regard to women, the body positivity movement may uplift people of all genders and sexes - as well as ages, races, ethnicities, sexual preferences, and religions.

Brand influence and social media

Due to social media the notion "every body is beautiful" came into being. The movement for body positivity has played a role in influencing marketing campaigns for major corporations. In 2004, Dove launched their "Real Beauty" campaign, in which advertisements depicted women of varying body types and skin tones in a manner that portrayed acceptance and positivity towards their bodies. On their website, Dove presents its Dove Self-Esteem Project as a mission for "helping young people reach their full potential by delivering quality body confidence and self-esteem education". The company also partners with and raises money for eating disorder organizations.

In 2017, the American women's underwear company Aerie launched a campaign called "AerieReal", in which the company promised to not retouch or edit their models, encouraging body positivity and body-acceptance despite features such as cellulite, stretch marks, or fat rolls. Aerie has begun featuring body positive influencers in their photo shoots and advertising campaigns, as well as plus sized models. To accommodate the last, the brand has launched a plus size clothing line.

In 2019, Decathlon joined the efforts of other companies with their #LeggingsForEverybody campaign, stating their mission as "to boost body confidence and support you in your fitness journey".

Recently, paradigms on social media have been changing from pushing feminine beauty ideals to challenging those ideals through image related empowerment and inspiration. Several influencers such as AerieReal model Iskra Lawrence have been preaching body positivity, creating hashtags such as #IWokeUpLikeThis, #EffYourBeautyStandards, #HonorMyCurves, #CelebrateMySize, #GoldenConfidence, and #ImNoModelEither.

Social media plays a pivotal role in the body positivity movement, in part by providing education and exposure on different body types. Instagram and Facebook are some social platforms that, as of 2019, have body positive policies that cause advertisements for cosmetic surgery, weight loss supplements, and detox products, to be hidden from underaged demographics. In addition to promoting positive body image, these policies aim to curb the advertisement of supplements unregulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Social media platforms such as Instagram are frequently used to post body positivity content and fuel related discussion.

Although studies about social media and body image are still in their early stages, there seems to be a correlation between social media use and body image concerns. Body image tends to be positively or negatively affected by the content to which people are exposed on social media. The action of people uploading pictures of themselves appears to effectuate a negative body image.

Criticism

See also: Fat acceptance § Criticism

The body positivity movement has been criticized for encouraging lifestyle habits that negatively affect one's health. A central complaint is that excessive approval of overweight and obese individuals could dissuade them from desiring to improve their health, leading to lifestyle disease. Among health professionals, agreement with the movement is very low. A 2012 study found that among a sample of 1,130 trainee dietitians, nutritionists, nurses and medical doctors, only 1.4% had "positive or neutral attitudes" regarding excess body fat.

The movement has also faced criticism from feminists. Gender scholar Amber E. Kinser wrote that posting an unedited photo of your body to a social media website, which is an example of an action associated with the movement, does little to prevent women's worth from being directly correlated to their physical appearance.

With the majority of the body positivity movement recently occurring on Instagram, a recent study found that 40 percent of body positivity posts were centered around appearance. With Instagram being a photo-sharing social media site, the effort to place the focus less on appearance has been criticized to be contradictory.

Another criticism is that the movement puts too much emphasis on the role of the individual to improve their own body image, and not enough attention on identifying and eliminating the cultural forces, messages, beliefs, and advertising campaigns accountable for causing widespread body dissatisfaction.

The criticism has also been leveled that the movement can impair one's agency and authenticity. Researcher Lisa Legault argues that an undue emphasis on body positivity can "stifle and diminish important negative feelings." She explains that negative feelings are a natural part of the human experience and that such feelings can be important and informational. She says "ignoring negative feelings and experiences exerts a cost to authenticity and self-integration." The movement, Legault argues, cannot make it seem like a person should only feel positive emotions. This expectation to have only positive feelings is sometimes called "toxic body positivity."

Positive effects of body positivity

Understanding the positive impacts of body positivity has allowed society to embrace new ways of thinking about the self and individual bodies. According to Chef Sky Hanka, there are different ways to love your body but also ditch negativity. The idea of body positivity can result in individuals feeling more optimistic about their bodies, which can lead to improved self-esteem and overall self-confidence. Embracing body positivity starts with thoughts, words, and actions. Individuals spend the most time with themself, so they must not break their relationship with themselves.  When embracing body positivity, a person should not beat themself up if there are moments when they are struggling with their body image. Working with body positivity, step by step – will eventually improve one’s self-esteem. 

A healthy person often has a relationship with their body. Because they are motivated by self-care rather than shame or guilt, people who are body positive engage in healthy habits like exercise and balanced eating. Positive emotions can enhance physical health.  Body positivity requires one to practice positive thinking towards their body. Some of the physical health benefits of this way of thinking are “Increased lifespan,” Lower levels of distress and pain,” Greater resistance to illnesses,” reduced risk of death from respiratory conditions,” and “reduced risk of death from infections.” Practicing body positivity will help increase an individual’s desire for self-care, leading to better habit-building and helping them define what wellness means to them. 

It also improves mental health. One can reduce anxiety and depression by being body positive. Having a positive approach to life and accepting uncomfortable situations has proven to help keep one's mind healthy and resilient.  Body positivity is, "the mindset that everyone is worthy of love and a positive body image, regardless of how the media and society tries to define beauty or the ideal body type." When individuals have a positive body image, they reduce the development of Anxiety and depression.

Code smell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_smell

In computer programming, a code smell is any characteristic in the source code of a program that possibly indicates a deeper problem. Determining what is and is not a code smell is subjective, and varies by language, developer, and development methodology.

The term was popularised by Kent Beck on WardsWiki in the late 1990s. Usage of the term increased after it was featured in the 1999 book Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code by Martin Fowler. It is also a term used by agile programmers.

Definition

One way to look at smells is with respect to principles and quality: "Smells are certain structures in the code that indicate violation of fundamental design principles and negatively impact design quality". Code smells are usually not bugs; they are not technically incorrect and do not prevent the program from functioning. Instead, they indicate weaknesses in design that may slow down development or increase the risk of bugs or failures in the future. Bad code smells can be an indicator of factors that contribute to technical debt. Robert C. Martin calls a list of code smells a "value system" for software craftsmanship.

Often the deeper problem hinted at by a code smell can be uncovered when the code is subjected to a short feedback cycle, where it is refactored in small, controlled steps, and the resulting design is examined to see if there are any further code smells that in turn indicate the need for more refactoring. From the point of view of a programmer charged with performing refactoring, code smells are heuristics to indicate when to refactor, and what specific refactoring techniques to use. Thus, a code smell is a driver for refactoring.

A 2015 study utilizing automated analysis for half a million source code commits and the manual examination of 9,164 commits determined to exhibit "code smells" found that:

• There exists empirical evidence for the consequences of "technical debt", but there exists only anecdotal evidence as to how, when, or why this occurs.
• Common wisdom suggests that urgent maintenance activities and pressure to deliver features while prioritizing time-to-market over code quality are often the causes of such smells.

Tools such as Checkstyle, PMD, FindBugs, and SonarQube can automatically identify code smells.

Common code smells

Application-level smells

• Mysterious name: functions, modules, variables or classes that are named in a way that does not communicate what they do or how to use them.
• Duplicated code: identical or very similar code that exists in more than one location.
• Contrived complexity: forced usage of overcomplicated design patterns where simpler design patterns would suffice.
• Shotgun surgery: a single change that needs to be applied to multiple classes at the same time.
• Uncontrolled side effects: side effects of coding that commonly cause runtime exceptions, with unit tests unable to capture the exact cause of the problem.
• Variable mutations: mutations that vary widely enough that refactoring the code becomes increasingly difficult, due to the actual value's status as unpredictable and hard to reason about.
• Boolean blindness: easy to assert on the opposite value and still type checks.

Class-level smells

• Large class: a class that contains too many types or contains many unrelated methods
• Feature envy: a class that uses methods of another class excessively.
• Inappropriate intimacy: a class that has dependencies on implementation details of another class
• Refused bequest: a class that overrides a method of a base class in such a way that the contract of the base class is not honored by the derived class
• Lazy class/freeloader: a class that does too little.
• Excessive use of literals: these should be coded as named constants, to improve readability and to avoid programming errors. Additionally, literals can and should be externalized into resource files/scripts, or other data stores such as databases where possible, to facilitate localization of software if it is intended to be deployed in different regions.
• Cyclomatic complexity: too many branches or loops; this may indicate a function needs to be broken up into smaller functions, or that it has potential for simplification/refactoring.
• Downcasting: a type cast which breaks the abstraction model; the abstraction may have to be refactored or eliminated.
• Orphan variable or constant class: a class that typically has a collection of constants which belong elsewhere where those constants should be owned by one of the other member classes.
• Data clump: Occurs when a group of variables are passed around together in various parts of the program. In general, this suggests that it would be more appropriate to formally group the different variables together into a single object, and pass around only the new object instead.

Method-level smells

• Too many parameters: a long list of parameters is hard to read, and makes calling and testing the function complicated. It may indicate that the purpose of the function is ill-conceived and that the code should be refactored so responsibility is assigned in a more clean-cut way.
• Long method: a method, function, or procedure that has grown too large.
• Excessively long identifiers: in particular, the use of naming conventions to provide disambiguation that should be implicit in the software architecture.
• Excessively short identifiers: the name of a variable should reflect its function unless the function is obvious.
• Excessive return of data: a function or method that returns more than what each of its callers needs.
• Excessive comments: a class, function or method has irrelevant or trivial comments. A comment on an attribute setter/getter is a good example.
• Excessively long line of code (or God Line): A line of code which is too long, making the code difficult to read, understand, debug, refactor, or even identify possibilities of software reuse.

Anti-pattern

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-pattern

An anti-pattern in software engineering, project management, and business processes is a common response to a recurring problem that is usually ineffective and risks being highly counterproductive. The term, coined in 1995 by computer programmer Andrew Koenig, was inspired by the book Design Patterns (which highlights a number of design patterns in software development that its authors considered to be highly reliable and effective) and first published in his article in the Journal of Object-Oriented Programming. A further paper in 1996 presented by Michael Ackroyd at the Object World West Conference also documented anti-patterns.

It was, however, the 1998 book AntiPatterns that both popularized the idea and extended its scope beyond the field of software design to include software architecture and project management. Other authors have extended it further since to encompass environmental/organizational/cultural anti-patterns.

Definition

According to the authors of Design Patterns, there are two key elements to an anti-pattern that distinguish it from a bad habit, bad practice, or bad idea:

1. The anti-pattern is a commonly-used process, structure or pattern of action that, despite initially appearing to be an appropriate and effective response to a problem, has more bad consequences than good ones.
2. Another solution exists to the problem the anti-pattern is attempting to address. This solution is documented, repeatable, and proven to be effective where the anti-pattern is not.

A guide to what is commonly used is a "rule-of-three" similar to that for patterns: to be an anti-pattern it must have been witnessed occurring at least three times.

Uses

Documenting anti-patterns can be an effective way to analyze a problem space and to capture expert knowledge.

While some anti-pattern descriptions merely document the adverse consequences of the pattern, good anti-pattern documentation also provides an alternative, or a means to ameliorate the anti-pattern.

Software engineering anti-patterns

In software engineering, anti-patterns include the big ball of mud (lack of) design, the God Class (where a single class handles all control in a program rather than control being distributed across multiple classes), magic numbers (where a unique value with an unexplained meaning or multiple occurrences which could be replaced with a named constant), and Poltergeists (ephemeral controller classes that only exist to invoke other methods on classes).

Big ball of mud

This indicates a software system that lacks a perceivable architecture. Although undesirable from a software engineering point of view, such systems are common in practice due to business pressures, developer turnover and code entropy.

The term was popularized in Brian Foote and Joseph Yoder's 1997 paper of the same name, which defines the term:

A Big Ball of Mud is a haphazardly structured, sprawling, sloppy, duct-tape-and-baling-wire, spaghetti-code jungle. These systems show unmistakable signs of unregulated growth, and repeated, expedient repair. Information is shared promiscuously among distant elements of the system, often to the point where nearly all the important information becomes global or duplicated.

The overall structure of the system may never have been well defined.

If it was, it may have eroded beyond recognition. Programmers with a shred of architectural sensibility shun these quagmires. Only those who are unconcerned about architecture, and, perhaps, are comfortable with the inertia of the day-to-day chore of patching the holes in these failing dikes, are content to work on such systems.

— Brian Foote and Joseph Yoder, Big Ball of Mud. Fourth Conference on Patterns Languages of Programs (PLoP '97/EuroPLoP '97) Monticello, Illinois, September 1997

Foote and Yoder have credited Brian Marick as the originator of the 'big ball of mud' term for this sort of architecture.

Project management anti-patterns

Project management anti-patterns included in the Antipatterns book include Blowhard Jamboree (an excess of industry pundits), analysis paralysis, Viewgraph Engineering (too much time spent making presentations and not enough on the actual software), Death by Planning (similarly, too much planning), Fear of Success (irrational fears near to project completion), The Corncob (difficulties with people), Intellectual Violence (intimidation through use of jargon or arcane technology), Irrational Management (bad management habits), Smoke and Mirrors (excessive use of demos and prototypes by salespeople), Throw It Over the Wall (forcing fad software engineering practices onto developers without buy-in), Fire Drill (long periods of monotony punctuated by short crises), The Feud (conflicts between managers), and e-mail Is Dangerous (situations resulting from ill-advised e-mail messages).

Toxic leader

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_leader 

A toxic leader is a person who has responsibility for a group of people or an organization, and who abuses the leader–follower relationship by leaving the group or organization in a worse condition than it was in. Good and bad leadership styles can propagate downwards in an organisation, and there may therefore be little support to be gained by reporting toxic leadership upwards in the hierarchy.

History

In his 1994 journal article "Petty Tyranny in Organizations" Blake Ashforth discussed potentially destructive sides of leadership and identified what he referred to as "petty tyrants", i.e. leaders who exercise a tyrannical style of management, resulting in a climate of fear in the workplace.

In 1996 Marcia Lynn Whicker popularized the term "toxic leader".

Basic traits

The basic traits of a toxic leader are generally considered to be either/or insular, intemperate, glib, operationally rigid, callous, inept, discriminatory, corrupt or aggressive by scholars such as Barbara Kellerman.

Aggressive narcissism

This syndrome is also the 'Factor 1' in Robert D.Hare's Psychopathy Checklist, which includes the following traits:

• Glibness/superficial charm
• Grandiose sense of self-worth
• Pathological lying
• Cunning/manipulative
• Lack of remorse or guilt
• Callous/lack of empathy
• Shallow emotional affect (genuine emotion is short-lived and egocentric)
• Failure to accept responsibility for own actions

Other traits

The United States Army defines toxic leaders as commanders who put their own needs first, micro-manage subordinates, behave in a mean-spirited manner or display poor decision-making. A study for the Center for Army Leadership found that toxic leaders in the army work to promote themselves at the expense of their subordinates, and usually do so without considering long-term ramifications to their subordinates, their unit, and the Army profession.

Ashforth proposed the following six characteristics to define petty tyranny:

1. Arbitrariness and self-aggrandizement
2. Belittling of subordinates
3. Lack of consideration for others
4. A forcing style of conflict resolution
5. Discouragement of initiative
6. Noncontingent use of punishment: that is, punishment (e.g. displeasure or criticism) allotted without discernible or consistent principles; not dependent on, or necessarily associated with, undesirable behaviors.

Tools

• Workload: The setting up to fail procedure is in particular a well established workplace bullying tactic that a toxic leader can use against his rivals and subordinates.
• Corporate control systems: They could use the processes in place to monitor what is going on. Disciplinary systems could be abused to aid their power culture.
• Organizational structures: They could abuse the hierarchies, personal relationships and the way that work flows through the business.
• Corporate power structures: The toxic leader controls who, if any one makes the decisions and how widely spread power is.
• Symbols of personal authority: These may include the right to parking spaces and executive washrooms or access to supplies and uniforms. Narcissistic symbols and self-images (i.e. workplace full of self-portraits).
• Workplace rituals and routines: Management meetings, board reports, disciplinary hearing, performance assays and so on may become more habitual than necessary.

Heavy running costs and a high staff turnover/overtime rate are often also associated with employee related results of a toxic leade

Key theorists

Jean Lipman-Blumen

Main article: Jean Lipman-Blumen

In their book, The Allure of Toxic Leaders: Why We Follow Destructive Bosses and Corrupt Politicians—and How We Can Survive Them, Jean Lipman-Blumen explained that there was and still is a tendency among contemporary society to seek authoritative, even dominating characteristics among our corporate and political leaders because of the public's own personal psycho-social needs and emotional weaknesses.

Lipman-Blumen noticed "toxic leadership" was not about run-of-the-mill mismanagement. Rather, it referred to leaders, who, by virtue of their "dysfunctional personal characteristics" and "destructive behaviours" "inflict reasonably serious and enduring harm" not only on their own followers and organizations, but on others outside of their immediate circle of victims and subordinates, as well. A noted rule of thumb suggests that toxic leaders leave their followers and others who come within their sphere of influence worse off than they found them either on a personal and/or corporate basis.

Lipman-Blumens' core focus was on investigating why people will continue to follow and remain loyal to toxic leaders. She also explored why followers often vigorously resist change and challenges to leaders who have clearly violated the leader/follower relationship and abused their power as leaders to the direct detriment of the people they are leading. Lipman-Blumen suggests there is something of a deeply psychological nature going on. She argues the need to feel safe, specialness and in a social community all help explain this psychological phenomenon.

Barbara Kellerman

Main article: Barbara Kellerman (academic)

In Bad Leadership: What It Is, How It Happens, Why It Matters, Barbara Kellerman suggests that toxicity in leadership (or simply, "bad leadership") may be analysed into seven different types:

• Incompetent: The leader and at least some followers lack the will or skill (or both) to sustain effective action. With regard to at least one important leadership challenge, they do not create positive change.
• Rigid: The leader and at least some followers are stiff and unyielding. Although they may be competent, they are unable or unwilling to adapt to new ideas, new information, or changing times.
• Intemperate: The leader lacks self-control and is aided and abetted by followers who are unwilling or unable to effectively intervene.
• Callous: The leader and at least some followers are uncaring or unkind. Ignored and discounted are the needs, wants, and wishes of most members of the group or organization, especially subordinates.
• Corrupt: The leader and at least some followers lie, cheat, or steal. To a degree that exceeds the norm, they put self-interest ahead of the public interest.
• Insular: The leader and at least some followers minimize or disregard the health and welfare of those outside the group or organization for which they are directly responsible.
• Evil: The leader and at least some followers commit atrocities. They use pain as an instrument of power. The harm can be physical, psychological or both.

Terry Price

In his book, Understanding Ethical Failures in Leaders, Terry L. Price argues that the volitional account of moral failures in leaders do not provide a complete account of this phenomenon. Some have suggested that the reason leaders misbehave ethically is because they willingly go against what they know to be wrong. Professor Price however, offers an alternative analysis of leaders who excuse themselves from normally applicable moral requirements. He argues that a cognitive account for ethical failures in leaders provides a better analysis of the issues involved in all the ethical conundrums under the rubric of "toxic leadership". Leaders can know that a certain kind of behavior is generally required by morality but still be mistaken as to whether the relevant moral requirement applies to them in a particular situation and whether others are protected by this requirement. Price demonstrates how leaders make exceptions of themselves, explains how the justificatory force of leadership gives rise to such exception-making, and develops normative protocols that leaders should adopt.

 

Queen bee syndrome

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_bee_syndrome 

Queen bee syndrome is a phenomenon first defined by C. Tavris, G.L. Staines, and T.E. Jayaratne in 1973. “Queen bee” is a derogatory term applied to women who have achieved success in traditionally male-dominated fields. These women often take on “masculine” traits and distance themselves from other women in the workplace in order to succeed. They may also view or treat subordinates more critically if they are female, and refuse to help other women rise up the ranks as a form of self-preservation.

There are competing arguments as to whether or not queen bee syndrome is simply a myth. Some believe the term “queen bee” perpetuates outdated gender stereotypes, especially since there is currently no male-equivalent term. Tavris herself has expressed regret over coining such “a catchy name” for “such a complex pattern of behavior”. She explains that the term has been misinterpreted, providing a false understanding of female dynamics in the workplace.

The queen bee phenomenon has been documented by several studies. Scientists from the University of Toronto speculated that queen bee syndrome may be the reason that women find it more stressful to work for female managers; no difference was found in stress levels for male workers.

It has been considered that part of the reason “queen bee” behavior has been untreated, or simply ignored for so long is because in its intrasexual nature, the discrimination goes virtually unrecognized. Contrary to men, when women in senior professional positions make judgements about their female subordinates, often no one will think to question whether or not it constitutes a form of gender discrimination.

Origin

Gender stereotypes

Queen bee syndrome could be partially attributed to long-standing societal gender stereotypes wherein women are perceived to be lacking traditional leadership and achievement-oriented qualities (i.e., assertiveness, decisiveness)– often seen as synonymous with masculinity. This brings upon pressure for professional women to adopt these qualities, especially in work environments where men are the majority. It's believed that high-achieving women develop queen bee syndrome due to the lack of opportunities for women in the professional sector. With few top spots available to women, especially those of colour, “queen bees” feel they need to protect their place by exhibiting "masculine" traits as a form of self-group distancing. As iterated by N. Ellemers et al., “survival of women in male-dominated work environment entails a form of individual mobility, in the sense that they have to prove to themselves and others that they are unlike other women in order to be successful”. In a 1976 study by Ruble & Higgins, their research suggested that when females are in the minority of a group, which in high-level professional sectors is often the case, they described themselves in more "masculine" terms.

Gender stereotypes plague women in many arenas, notably in the workplace and in academia. Men have monopolized most positions of power since time immemorial, therefore their leadership styles have been predominantly masculine. Women encounter much difficulty in their attempts to earn these positions, afflicted with the negative “feminine” stereotypes of emotional instability, low career commitment, and lack of leadership skills, to name a few. It seems probable that the queen bee phenomenon arose as a symptom of gender stereotyping, forcing women to alienate themselves from other women and subsequently their perceived negative traits.

In childhood, boys are socialized to be leaders and decision-makers, meanwhile girls are warned that if they're too “bossy”, they won't be liked. In an experiment by Joyce Benenson, she discovered that among five-year-old children in a competitive scenario, the dominant boy was revered by the other boys, however the dominant girl was disliked by the other girls. Coming into adolescence and adulthood, moving into leadership positions already poses a challenge for women who haven’t been afforded the same opportunities to lead as their male counterparts.

In 1994, V. O’Leary and M. M. Ryan argued that high-achieving women might be perceived as “queen bees” due to the fact that their female employees struggle to see them as the boss; seeing their women bosses as women and their men bosses as bosses. They suggested that perhaps female employees held their women bosses to a double standard, expecting them to be more understanding, nurturing, and forgiving (traditional “feminine” traits) than men bosses.

Female solidarity or sisterhood

There is an assumption that women are part of an unspoken sisterhood, and when some women move up the ranks into more powerful positions, they must adopt different qualities in order to fit in and gain respect– qualities that are less than congruent with solidarity or sisterhood. As J. Wacjman articulates, “...women's presence in the world of men is conditional on them being willing to modify their behavior to become more like men or to be perceived as more male than men". High-achieving women don’t have a lot of options; in modifying their behavior to be more conducive to leadership, they alienate themselves from other women and are seen as traitors, yet by sticking with the unspoken sisterhood, they struggle to gain traction professionally. When ambitious women choose to do what it takes to advance their careers, they often get labelled the “queen bee” due to the skewed perceptions of women in positions of power and leadership.

In the workplace

Main article: Occupational sexism

Recent research has postulated that queen bee syndrome may be a product of certain cultural influences, especially those related to the modern workplace. In a study done in the Netherlands by B. Derks, N. Ellemers, C. van Laar and K. de Groot, it was found that women who displayed the most “queen bee” tendencies (portrayal of “masculine” traits, distancing from other women, gender stereotyping) experienced the highest levels of gender-based discrimination earlier on in their careers. This supports the theory that the queen bee phenomenon is a consequence of gender-based discrimination inflicted on women trying to get ahead in their careers. "Queen bee" women, aware of their sacrifices made in order to become successful, see other up-and-coming women and believe they should be able to figure out how to achieve success without assistance or a whole movement, just as they did. These tendencies of women themselves subsequently maintain the barriers sustained by occupational sexism to shut them out. However, when it comes to women of similar seniority, “queen bees” are supportive, believing these women have also worked hard for their success.

It appears that the social dynamics of unbalanced work environments bring about the most discrimination. In a 1982 study by Gutek & Morasch, they found that in both female and male-dominated workplaces, women experienced higher levels of gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment as opposed to a workplace with roughly equal numbers of men and women.

Researchers have hypothesized that queen bee behavior may be developed by women who have achieved senior positions in their respective fields as a way to defend themselves against the gender bias experienced in the workplace. Distancing themselves from female subordinates attempting to advance in their own careers allows “queen bees” to connect with their male colleagues while demonstrating stereotypically masculine qualities such as assertiveness or leadership, which are attributed to success. By exhibiting these "masculine" traits, “queen bees” further legitimize their right to be in important professional positions as well as attaining job security by showing commitment to their careers.

Research has shown that women exhibiting queen bee qualities are less likely to hire the female when choosing between a highly qualified male candidate and an equally qualified female candidate due to ‘competition threat’. With a highly qualified female candidate, the “queen bee” might feel threatened. When asked to choose between a moderately qualified male candidate and an equally qualified female candidate, “queen bees” were again less likely to hire the female candidate, this time due to ‘collective threat’. In this case, the “queen bee” might worry the female candidate would reflect negatively on her, as women in male-dominated workplaces are often grouped together by social categorization.

Social categorization

Social categorization, or self-categorization theory, is a psychological theory closely related to the processes of social perception wherein a person groups themselves and others into categories based on shared characteristics. This theory is thought to be ingrained since infancy and affects the way people perceive others– as part of a broader social grouping rather than as individuals. By way of social categorization, a subconscious process for the most part, individuals are assigned pre-designated traits as part of their larger group or category. For women in the workplace, social categorization works to their disadvantage as they are assigned stereotypically feminine traits such as being agreeable, helpful, sympathetic, and kind– and therefore perceived as less capable in leadership roles. When high-achieving women present themselves as anything less than those designated traits, they are often labeled as "bitches" or more specifically, "queen bees". Men are seen as great leaders for being ambitious and assertive, whereas women are often viewed as “unfeminine”, “bossy” or “bitchy” for exhibiting those same traits.

In-group bias

Main article: In-group favoritism

In the professional sector, an in-group is a (typically exclusive) network of people from any given workplace who participate in informal get-togethers or events outside of work. It is at these informal get-togethers where colleagues get to know one another on a personal level and industry knowledge or workplace gossip is often shared. Beyond that, being a part of an in-group can lead to career advantages down the road. More often than not, it seems women and people of colour are scarcely included in these exclusive groups due to affinity bias– the tendency to favour those similar to us– exhibited by their male superiors. In social psychology, there is another term, similarity attraction, which may contribute to why high-level male executives tend to promote men over equally-qualified women. With fewer spots left at the top for women and a harder climb to get there, queen bee syndrome remains as a fighting-mechanism for ambitious females.

In academia

Main article: Sexism in academia

In a 2004 study done in Italy, it was found that the older generation of female faculty viewed their female doctoral students in a stereotypical manner and made biased judgements about their commitment. The older female faculty began to pursue their careers when it was much rarer for women to do so, and view themselves as more “masculine” as a result. In contrast, the younger generation of Italian women are pursuing their careers at a time where it is much more common and widely accepted, meaning these women have less reason to suppress their “feminine” traits or perform self-group distancing. This resistance of gender stereotyping is a freeing evolution for both men and women in academia.

Emotion politics

Emotion politics are at play in the maintenance of the queen bee phenomenon, altering how women treat other women as well as how they carry themselves in traditionally male-dominated arenas. It has been proven that when demonstrating the same level of competence that is commended in men, women are seen as unattractive and cold. When it comes to certain qualities and emotions, men and women are forcibly segregated into specific boxes and viewed as opposing, rather than harmonious forces. In the workplace and in academia notably, when women blur the lines between the two forces, for example, showing extreme competence or success in the professional sphere, they become the target for derogatory terms such as “queen bee”, “ice queen”, and “bitch”. It appears that when women prove themselves in a traditionally-male role, they are punished for altering the favourable image of a woman.

Gender discrimination can arise through the beliefs concerning which emotions are appropriate for people to show. Stereotypically, women are expected to be kind and nurturing, communal, and modest, while they are not expected to display anger. Expressing an emotion that doesn't line up with people's beliefs about gender-appropriate behavior can lead to being given a lower status at work, and consequently, a lower wage.

Anger

A 2008 study found that men who expressed anger in the workplace were given a higher status, while women who expressed anger in the workplace were given a lower status, regardless of their actual position in the company. A trainee and a CEO who were female were both given a low status when displaying anger. Additionally, women who displayed anger in the workplace were assumed to have something internal influencing their anger, as opposed to having an external reason to be angry. Men more often had their anger attributed to an external cause.

The expression of anger is believed to be related to status, as anger is considered a status emotion. Positive impressions of those who display anger are reserved for people who are stereotypically conferred a higher status. A 2007 study found that female employees in a subordinate position displayed anger toward higher status employees much less frequently than their male counterparts. This suggests that the stereotypical norm of men displaying anger carries over into the workplace, while the norm of women restraining displays of anger also carries over. It also suggests that, although men in low level positions in the workplace possess a low status in this context, they may carry over the higher status that comes with their gender. Women do not possess this high status; therefore the low status that low-level women possess in the workplace is the sole status that matters.

Competition

The queen bee phenomenon still has no male-equivalent term, perhaps because male competition is seen as normal, healthy behavior, and as children it’s even encouraged. Female competition however, is looked down upon– from childhood onward, women in competition are labeled as backstabbing, conniving, catty “mean girls”. There are countless books and movies portraying the concept that it has started to become the standard. Despite the prevalence of material depicting queen bee behavior among females, studies have shown that men actually participate in similar to elevated levels of indirect aggression linked to queen bee behavior (i.e., gossiping, rumour spreading, social exclusion) in comparison to women. Admittedly, young boys tend to display physical aggression more than young girls at any age, but a 1992 study demonstrated that as boys reach the age of 11, verbal and indirect aggression levels rise. Verbal and indirect aggression requires a degree of social intelligence and understanding of interpersonal relationships, skills that girls tend to develop earlier than boys (around the age of 8). A 2005 study in Britain asked university students to report how often they either experienced, or participated in forms of indirect aggression (specifically social exclusion, use of malicious humour, and guilt induction). The results presented no differences between the experiences of men and women based on these self-reported numbers.

Criticisms of the theory

Recent research, that uses a robust causal identification mechanism (i.e., regression discontinuity design), strongly contests the existence of the queen bee phenomenon. The results of this study suggest that previous research was biased – either by eliciting confirming cases (as is often done in qualitative research) or that observational data based on questionnaire measures was biased because of endogeneity issues.

Some find the queen bee phenomenon to be unknowingly perpetuating gender stereotypes that are sorely outdated. It is also argued that the term undermines women’s professional progress and abilities, and tarnishes the reputation of groups of women in the professional sphere. Another criticism of the theory comes from the belief that it promotes a “blame the woman” narrative.

In her book, Lean In, chief operating officer of Facebook, Sheryl Sandberg deplored the syndrome writing, “Often, without realizing it, women internalize disparaging cultural attitudes and then echo them back”.

A study by Credit Suisse counters the evidence of the queen bee phenomenon. In examining 3,400 of the world’s largest companies, it was revealed that female CEOs were 50% more likely than their male counterparts to have a female CFO; and 55% more likely to have business units run by women. It was also discovered that while typically women are found within human resources or legal departments, in female-led companies it became less likely due to the fact that female CEOs were supporting their female executives branching out into more influential roles within the company.

Notable cases

The 2002 self-help book, Queen Bees and Wannabes by Rosalind Wiseman details aggressive teenage girl behavior.

The 2004 film, Mean Girls (partly based on Queen Bees and Wannabes) depicts examples of both queen bee syndrome as well as social categorization in teenagers.

Fat acceptance movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_acceptance_movement 

The sculpture of two women in bronze, Jag tänker på mig själv – Växjö ( 'I am thinking of myself - Växjö') by Marianne Lindberg De Geer, 2005, outside the art museum (Konsthallen) in Växjö, Sweden. Its display of one thin woman and one fat woman is a demonstration against modern society's obsession with outwardly appearances. The sculpture has been a source of controversy in the town, with both statues being vandalized and repaired in 2006.

The fat acceptance movement is a social movement which seeks to eliminate the social stigma of obesity from social attitudes by pointing out the obstacles which are faced by fat people. Areas of contention include the aesthetic, legal, and medical approaches to fat people.

The modern fat acceptance movement began in the late 1960s. Besides its political role, the fat acceptance movement also constitutes a subculture which acts as a social group for its members. The fat acceptance movement has been criticized for not adding value to the debate over human health, with some critics accusing the movement of "promoting a lifestyle that can have dire health consequences".

History

The history of the fat acceptance movement can be dated back to 1967 when 500 people met in New York's Central Park to protest against anti-fat bias. Sociologist Charlotte Cooper has argued that the history of the fat activist movement is best understood in waves, similar to the feminist movement, with which she believes it is closely tied. Cooper believes that fat activists have suffered similar waves of activism followed by burnout, with activists in the following wave often unaware of the history of the movement, resulting in a lack of continuity.

First wave

First wave activities consisted of isolated activists drawing attention to the dominant model of obesity and challenging it as only one of several possible models.

During the early part of the 20th century, obesity was seen as detrimental to the community, via decreasing human efficiency, and that obese people interfere with labor productivity in the coastal areas of the United States. This kind of political climate was the background of the fat acceptance movement, which originated in the late 1960s. Like other social movements from this period, the fat acceptance movement, initially known as "Fat Pride", "Fat Power", or "Fat Liberation", often consisted of people acting in an impromptu fashion. A "fat-in" was staged in New York's Central Park in 1967. Called by radio personality Steve Post, the "Fat-in" consisted of a group of 500 people eating, carrying signs and photographs of Twiggy (a model famous for her thin figure), and burning diet books.

In 1967, Lew Louderback wrote an article in the Saturday Evening Post called "More People Should be FAT" in response to discrimination against his wife. The article led to a meeting between Louderback and William Fabrey, who went on to found the first organization for fat people and their supporters, originally named the 'National Association to Aid Fat Americans' and currently called the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance (NAAFA). NAAFA was founded in America, in 1969, by Bill Fabrey in response to discrimination against his wife. He primarily intended it to campaign for fat rights, however, a reporter attending the 2001 NAAFA conference notes that few attendees were active in fat rights politics and that most women came to shop for fashion, wear it on the conference catwalk or to meet a potential partner. Since 1991, Fabrey has worked as a director with the Council on Size and Weight Discrimination, specializing in the history of the size acceptance movement.

In 1972 the feminist group The Fat Underground was formed. It began as a radical chapter of NAAFA and spun off to become independent when NAAFA expressed concerns about its promotion of a stronger activist philosophy. The FU were inspired by and, in some cases, members of the Radical Therapy Collective, a feminist group that believed that many psychological problems were caused by oppressive social institutions and practices. Founded by Sara Fishman (then Sara Aldebaran) and Judy Freespirit, the Fat Underground took issue with what they saw as a growing bias against obesity in the scientific community. They coined the saying, "a diet is a cure that doesn't work, for a disease that doesn't exist". Shortly afterward, Fishman moved to Connecticut, where, along with Karen Scott-Jones, she founded the New Haven Fat Liberation Front, an organization similar to the Fat Underground in its scope and focus. In 1983, the two groups collaborated to publish a seminal book in the field of fat activism, Shadow on a Tightrope, which collected several fat activist position papers initially distributed by the Fat Underground, as well as poems and essays from other writers.

In 1979 Carole Shaw coined the term Big Beautiful Woman (BBW) and launched a fashion and lifestyle magazine of the same name aimed at plus-sized women. The original print magazine ceased publication in May 2003, but continued in various online formats. The term "BBW" has become widely used to refer to any fat woman (sometimes in a derogatory way). Several other periodicals focusing on fashion and lifestyle for "fuller-figured" women were published in print from the early 1980s to the mid 2010s - see details within the media section of the wiki article for Plus-size model. From 1984 - 2000 Radiance: The Magazine for Large Women was published in print to "support women 'all sizes of large in living proud, full, active lives, at whatever weight, with self-love and self-respect."

In the UK The London Fat Women's Group was formed, the first British fat activist group, and was active between approximately 1985 and 1989.

Other first wave activities included the productions of zines such as Figure 8 and Fat!So? by Marilyn Wann. The latter went on to become a book of the same name.

Second wave

In the second wave, the fat acceptance movement became more widespread in the US and started to spread to other countries. Ideas from the movement began to appear in the mainstream. Publishers became more willing to publish fat acceptance themed literature.

The 1980s witnessed an increase in activist organizations, publications, and conferences. In 1989 a group of people including actress Anne Zamberlan formed the first French organization for fat acceptance, Allegro fortissimo.

Organizations began holding conferences and conventions, including NAAFA.

By the 1990s, input from the fat acceptance movement began to be incorporated into research papers by some members of the medical professions such as new anti-dieting programs and models of obesity management.

Third wave

The fat acceptance movement has seen a diversification of projects during the third wave. Activities have addressed issues of both fat and race, class, sexuality, and other issues. Size discrimination has been increasingly addressed in the arts, as well.

Campaigning themes

The fat acceptance movement argues that fat people are targets of hatred and discrimination. In particular, advocates suggest obese women are subjected to more social pressure than obese men. The movement argues that these attitudes comprise a fat phobic entrenched societal norm, evident in many social institutions, including the mass media, where fat people are often ridiculed or held up as objects of pity. Discrimination includes a lack of equal access to transportation and employment. Members of the fat acceptance movement perceive negative societal attitudes as persistent, and as being based on the presumption that fatness reflects negatively on a person's character. Fat activists push for change in societal, personal, and medical attitudes toward fat people. Fat acceptance organizations engage in public education about what they describe as myths concerning fat people.

Discrimination

Fat people experience many different kinds of discrimination because of their weight. This discrimination appears in healthcare, employment, education, personal relationships, and the media. Fat individuals also argue clothing stores discriminate against them. For example, some women have complained that "one size fits all" stores, which offer a single size for each item, do not cater to those above a certain weight. Public transport has also been subject to criticism due to lack of inclusivity to fat people as seats and walkways are often too small to accommodate for them.

Health

Main articles: Health at Every Size, Obesity § Effects on health, and Metabolically healthy obesity

Fat activists argue that anti-fat stigma and aggressive diet promotion have led to an increase in psychological and physiological problems among fat people. Concerns are also raised that modern culture's focus on weight loss does not have a foundation in scientific research, but instead is an example of using science as a means to control deviance, as a part of society's attempt to deal with something that it finds disturbing. Diet critics cite the high failure rate of permanent weight-loss attempts, and the dangers of "yo-yo" weight fluctuations and weight-loss surgeries. Fat activists argue that the health issues of obesity and being overweight have been exaggerated or misrepresented, and that the health issues are used as a cover for cultural and aesthetic prejudices against fat.

Proponents of fat acceptance maintain that people of all shapes and sizes can strive for fitness and physical health. They believe health to be independent of body weight. Informed by this approach, psychologists who were unhappy with the treatment of fat people in the medical world initiated the Health at Every Size movement. It has five basic tenets: 1. Enhancing health, 2. Size and self-acceptance, 3. The pleasure of eating well, 4. The joy of movement, and 5. An end to weight bias.

Some medical studies have challenged the 'healthy obesity' concept, though the definitions of metabolically healthy obesity are not standardized across studies.

Gender

Fat women

Main articles: Big Beautiful Woman and Fat feminism

Documentary filmmaker Kira Nerusskaya released her film The BBW World: Under the Fat! In 2008.

The issues faced by fat women in society have been a central theme of the fat acceptance movement since its inception. Although the first organization, National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance, and the first book, Fat Power (1970), were both created by men, in each case they were responses to weight discrimination experienced by their wives. Women soon started campaigning on their behalf with the first feminist group, 'The Fat Underground', being formed in 1973. Issues addressed regarding women have included body image, and in particular the thin ideal and its effect on women. Critics say NAAFA, which opposes dieting and weight-loss surgery, is an apologist for an unhealthy lifestyle. But NAAFA says it does no such thing, that some people are just bigger and no less deserving of the same rights as everyone else.

Fat men

The fat acceptance movement has primarily focused on a feminist model of patriarchal oppression of fat women, most clearly represented by the encouragement of women to diet. However, Sander L. Gilman argues that, until the 20th century, dieting has historically been a man's activity. He continues, "Obesity eats away at the idealized image of the masculine just as surely as it does the idealized image of the feminine." William Banting was the author of an 1863 booklet called Letter On Corpulence which modern diets have used as a model. Men respond to being overweight differently, (i.e., having a Body Mass Index of 25 or more), being half as likely as women to diet, a quarter as likely to undergo weightloss surgery and only a fifth as likely to report feeling shame about their weight. Irmgard Tischner identifies this behavior as rooted in notions of masculinity that require disregard for healthcare: "Men do not have to care about their size or health, as they have women to care about those things for them".

Some gay men have moved beyond disregard for size to fat acceptance and fat activism with movements like chub culture, which started as Girth & Mirth clubs in San Francisco in 1976 and the bear culture which fetishizes big, hairy men. Ganapati Durgadas argues that fat bisexual and gay men "are reminders of the feminine stigma with which heterosexism still tars queer men". In a comparison of queer fat positive zines, the lesbian-produced Fat Girl was found to have political debate content absent from gay male orientated zines such as Bulk Male and Big Ad. Joel Barraquiel Tan comments: "If fat is a feminist issue, then fat or heft is a fetishized one for gay men. Gay men tend to sexualize difference, where lesbians have historically politicized it."

A fat heterosexual man is known as a "Big Handsome Man", in counterpart to a Big Beautiful Woman. Like some fat and gay men, BHMs have sexualized their difference and receive validation of this identity from BBWs or straight women known as "Female Fat Admirers".

Legislation

In the 1980s fat people in the United States began seeking legal redress for discrimination based on weight, primarily in the workplace but also for being denied access to, or treated differently in regards to, services or entertainment. The results of these cases have varied considerably, although in some instances the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) has been successfully used to argue cases of discrimination against fat people. Roth and Solovay argue that, as with transgender people, a major cause for the variation in success is the extent to which litigants are apologetic for their size (with more apologetic plaintiffs finding more success):

What is the difference between a million-dollar weight case award and a losing case? Like the difference between many winning and losing transgender cases, it's all about the attitude. Does the claimant's attitude and experience about weight/gender reinforce or challenge dominant stereotypes? Winning cases generally adopt a legal posture that reinforces social prejudices. Cases that challenge societal prejudices generally lose.

The Americans with Disabilities Act continues to be used as there is no USA federal law against weight discrimination; however, the state of Michigan has passed a law against weight discrimination. The cities of Washington, D.C., San Francisco (2000), Santa Cruz, Binghamton, Urbana (1990s), New York, and Madison (1970s) have also passed laws prohibiting weight discrimination. In the cities that have a weight discrimination law, it is rare for more than one case a year to be brought, except for San Francisco which may have as many as six. Opinions amongst city enforcement workers vary as to why the prosecution numbers are so low, although they all suggested that both overweight people and employers were unaware of the protective legislation and it was also noted that the cities with anti-weight discrimination laws tended to be liberal college towns.

However, not all legal changes have protected the rights of fat people. Despite recommendations from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to the contrary, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has decided that fat people will only qualify as disabled if it can be proved that their weight is caused by an underlying condition, supporting the concept that being obese is not inherently a disability.

Other countries besides the United States have considered legislation to protect the rights of fat people. In the UK an All-Party Parliamentary Group published a report in 2012 called Reflections on Body Image that found that one in five British people had been victimized because of their weight. The report recommended that Members of Parliament investigated putting "appearance-based discrimination" under the same legal basis as sexual or racial discrimination via the Equality Act 2010 which makes it illegal to harass, victimize or discriminate against anyone in the workplace based on several named categories, including size or weight. The Equality Act came into force on 1 October 2010, it brings together over 116 separate pieces of legislation into one single Act. The Act provides a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all.

Fat studies

There has also been an emerging body of academic studies called Fat Studies. Marilyn Wann argues that fat studies moved beyond being an individual endeavor to being a field of study with the 2004 conference Fat Attitudes: An Examination of an American Subculture and the Representation of the Female Body. The American Popular Culture Association regularly includes panels on the subject. In many colleges, student groups with a fat activist agenda have emerged, including Hampshire, Smith, and Antioch. Fat studies are now available as an interdisciplinary course of study at some colleges, taking a similar approach to other identity studies such as women's studies, queer studies, and African American studies. As of 2011, there were two Australian courses and ten American courses that were primarily focussed on fat studies or Health at Every Size, and numerous other courses that had some fat acceptance content. Taylor & Francis publish an online Fat Studies journal. The first national Fat Studies seminar was held at York in May 2008, leading to the 2009 publication Fat Studies in the UK, edited by Corinna Tomrley and Ann Kalosky Naylor.

Division within the movement

The fat acceptance movement has been divided in its response to proposed legislation defining morbidly obese people as disabled. NAAFA board member Peggy Howell says: "There's a lot of conflict in the size acceptance community over this. I don't consider myself disabled, and some people don't like 'fat' being considered a disability." An example of the positive perspective of obesity being classified as a disability in wider society is noted by one researcher: "She makes a point to tell me how impressed she is with the way many do make quiet and polite accommodations for her."

Women are particularly active within the fat acceptance movement and membership of fat acceptance organizations is dominated by middle-class women in the heaviest 1–2% of the population. Members have criticized the lack of representation in the movement from men, people of color, and people of lower socioeconomic status.

Criticism

The fat acceptance movement has been criticized from several perspectives. The primary criticism is that fat acceptance ignores studies that have shown health issues to be linked to obesity and hence, encourages an unhealthy lifestyle.

In 2008 Lily-Rygh Glen, a writer, musician, and former fat acceptance activist, interviewed multiple women who claimed to be rejected by their peers within the movement and labeled "traitors" when they changed their diets.

Medical criticism

There is a considerable amount of evidence that being obese is connected to increased all-cause mortality and diseases, and significant weight loss (>10%), using a variety of diets, improves or reverses metabolic syndromes and other health outcomes associated with obesity.

Barry Franklin, director of a cardio rehab facility, stated: "I don't want to take on any specific organization but... A social movement that would suggest health at any size in many respects can be misleading." However, Franklin also agrees that fit people who are obese have cardiovascular mortality rates that are lower than thin, unfit people, and proponents of the fat acceptance movement argue that people of all shapes and sizes can choose behaviors that support their fitness and physical health. The fat acceptance movement has been criticized for not adding value to the debate over human health, with some critics accusing the movement of "promoting a lifestyle that can have dire health consequences".