Sigh

Dimensions Magazine

Help Support Dimensions Magazine:

Donna

the book version is always better
***
Joined
Sep 29, 2005
Messages
2,379
Location
the foothills of the Appalachians
This makes me angry, but doesn't surprise me. When I was in high school, a friend of mine developed a thing for this boy who worked on his father's ranch. The ranch offered horses to rent by the hour to ride around the property and we spent quite a few Saturdays driving out to the ranch to ride. I was probably about 225 at the time and they never had an issue with me. I was concerned the first time we went out there, but he explained that unless I weighed three times what I did or if the horse was an old nag, there should never be an issue. A couple years later, I went with a group from work for a team event and was, much to my abject humiliation, refused due to my weight, although I wasn't too much bigger than I had been in high school. I was maybe about 250-275 at the time.)

Fat people are often denied service due to our weight. Amusement rides, massage businesses, chiropractors, hair salons, nail salons, I was even asked to leave a hayride event once. While there are times when there are somewhat valid concerns regarding safety for the customer and the business' equipment (breaking things in public is especially humiliating, never mind potential injury,) sometimes it is pure bias. Lack of inclusivity is a huge issue. Not just for fat folk, but for anyone who is "different."
 

Tad

Dimensions' loiterer
Staff member
Global Moderator
Library Mod
Joined
Sep 29, 2005
Messages
13,800
Location
The great white north, eh?
A small part of it is people not being ready for a bigger population. Not knowing what their furniture or gear is rated to, not being informed on what a horse can safely carry, not having staff trained in the safety of larger people, not bothering to test equipment/furniture for more than 250 pounds, and so on.
 

agouderia

Library Girl
Staff member
Library Mod
***
Joined
Jun 21, 2008
Messages
2,937
Location
,
A small part of it is people not being ready for a bigger population. Not knowing what their furniture or gear is rated to, not being informed on what a horse can safely carry, not having staff trained in the safety of larger people, not bothering to test equipment/furniture for more than 250 pounds, and so on.

Actually this is no longer 100% true. Given that a bigger population has been a manifest reality for quite some time now, many businesses have been adapting their products.
Take for instance ladders - 20 years ago (I have an old one in my shed), the standard weight limit was 120 kg (250 lbs.) - today it is 150 kg (330 lbs.), same goes for regular household scales btw. This applies to a wide range of products like chairs, toilets and the like. After all, producers want to sell their products and most of them do sound research into the realities of their market. They just don't talk about or advertise it because - unfortunately - "size doesn't sell".

Market reality though relies on economies of scale - so that still only covers a certain standard range in which the vast majority of all adults fall. For a long time this standard weight bracket was 100-200 lbs., more recently 120-250 lbs. that covered app. 90% of the adult population - today the bracket in many product fields has been expanded to 120-300 lbs.

This unfortunately does not cover everyone, supersize discrimination still is a major issue for all products and services. And there are fields where the trend has gone in the opposite direction - think airlines where price competition has simply been so tough that they've reduced space to be able to sell more tickets to break even.

Horse riding is a totally different issue. Horses aren't products, the issue at stake here is increased animal welfare.
The Tiktok video clearly is an insane case of fat discrimination - but weight limits for riding have indeed gone down over the past 10-15 years. 20% of the horse's weight used to be the maximum load (including saddle & gear) they were allowed to carry, now most equestrian federations have reduced the weight limit to 15% of the horse's weight.
(Granted - in many countries keeping the sport exclusive and banning common fatties from participating will also have been a motive. But look into the discussions, many animal welfare activists are calling for most riding events to be banned altogether.)
 

loopytheone

Staff member
Administrator
Global Moderator
***
Joined
Dec 14, 2012
Messages
5,133
Location
England
Yeah, I was thinking that as much as the fat shaming aspect sucks, you aren't entitled to go ride a horse. If the owner thinks it isn't safe for you/the horse for whatever reason, then you don't get to complain. I cringe at seeing horses straining carrying more than they should (usually small ponies with multiple kids). Even when a horse seems fine with a certain amount of weight, it can cause long term issues, as weight bearing for a long period can in any animal, humans included. If they don't have any suitable horses for you then that sucks, but it doesn't mean people get to hurt/damage a smaller horse just to appease their ego.

Also, it's easy to google weight limits. Or use any kind of common sense and think "hey, I'm heavy, this might be an issue". I'm 200 lbs, which isn't huge, but I don't ride horses anymore because of that and I wouldn't be offended if they told my they didn't have any horses for me. Realistically, in that situation I'd just ask if maybe I could spend the time being shown how to brush the horses, or feed them or whatever.

Last time I commented on an issue where I disagreed with the fat person in an article like this (albeit about something completely different) people here kind of jumped on me and started calling me fatphobic and all sorts of nonsense, so I've been afraid to comment on this, honestly. I do feel strongly about it though.

(also, off topic slightly, but I'm one of those people who thinks horse racing specifically should be banned)
 

Donna

the book version is always better
***
Joined
Sep 29, 2005
Messages
2,379
Location
the foothills of the Appalachians
Curiosity sent me to encyclopedia Google and according to a few searches, I found this:
"Deb Bennett, PhD, founder of the Equine Studies Institute and an expert in the biomechanics of horses, has advised that the “Total weight of rider plus tack must not exceed 250 lbs. There is no horse alive, of any breed, any build, anywhere, that can go more than a few minutes with more weight on its back than this. "

In my original post, I likened being turned away from a riding facility to being denied access to other places, such as nail salons and amusement parks. That was a bad comparison on my part, for sure. A living being's needs must always be considered. Mea culpa. I was going on information given to me nearly forty years ago (I was 17) by a boy who was interested in my friend and most likely would've said anything to make either of us happy. Learning that 250 max weight with the tack, my 225 body plus the tack most likely put that poor creature through hell because I'm sure together we were well over the 250 limit.

It makes me wonder about horses used in the rodeo, movie, and television industries. Surely male stars, especially the taller, more muscled ones, weigh close to or over that 250 mark. When I was younger, I was infatuated with Dan Blocker, the actor who played Hoss Cartwright on Bonanza. At 6'4" and 300 pounds, he was regularly filmed on horseback and even owned horses himself. I love horses, an affinity I discovered watching Blocker on my tv screen and later during those high school days traipsing out to the ranch every Saturday to ride, but it pains me to think that I contributed to possible abuse.

That being said, places like chiropractor's offices, salons, amusement parks, et.al. should at least TRY to be as accessible to everyone as possible. There's a lot of argument over whether being fat constitutes a handicap, and as such is covered under the ADA regarding accessibility. "Reasonable accommodation" would apply if it does, but there's still argument over what constitutes reasonable, and what smaller size merchants are expected to spend on their equipment. Let's face it, a pedicure chair rated for up to 200 pounds will be vastly less expensive than one rated to 500 pounds, and of course small businesses have to watch their spending especially at start up when this type of equipment is purchased, or they lose their bottom line. I'll be honest, I don't LIKE agreeing with loopy on this issue, but I believe she is correct in her conclusion. Riding a horse, getting a pedicure or a massage, or riding the tilt-o-whirl aren't things I'm entitled to. The idealist inside me wants to do those things (or I did before sickness took my ability to walk away,) but the realist knows it's not fair to expect them and the world just isn't one size fits all.

As far as the fat shaming aspect, well I'm not going to beat that dead horse today. I'll leave that to someone with more spoons. Fatphobia and Fatmisia have left me in critical need of more spoons.
 
Last edited:

GordoNegro

Thankful and Blissful.
***
Joined
Jun 22, 2006
Messages
795
Location
NYC 5 boros...Barclays Center/Juniors/Coney Island
Unfortunately most companies/businesses will opt for fat-shaming/fatphobia vs taking a hit on their bottom line or insurance.
Autopsy said the 14 yr old Orlando teen was 100+ lbs over the limit for the roller coaster ride as the bar could not snap into place.
Condolences to the grieving father and family.
I can see workers at Luna Park (Coney Island), Six Flags Great Adventure (Jackson, NJ) and Hershey's Park (Hershey, PA) being more observant or outright blunt towards fat customers who do not fit or cannot get the safety bar down completely pointing to the Orlando case as a result.

 

agouderia

Library Girl
Staff member
Library Mod
***
Joined
Jun 21, 2008
Messages
2,937
Location
,
'll be honest, I don't LIKE agreeing with loopy on this issue, but I believe she is correct in her conclusion. Riding a horse, getting a pedicure or a massage, or riding the tilt-o-whirl aren't things I'm entitled to.

In this debate I think it's important to not compare the proverbial apples & oranges.

Because leisure activities, entertainment and sports is one thing.

Daily necessities, access to services in the field of personal or medical care or basic life needs is something totally different and mest be judged on a different scale imo.

Take pedicure as an example (similar applies to massages) - if it's actual pedicure (not toe nail painting!), this is an important personal care, borderline medical service that can be especially important for people of size. Making sure that people of all sizes who need them recieve access is a public health issue - so finding a way of organizing that enough size friendly equipment is available is a task that needs legislative and administrative attention.
(Also by the way for cost reasons - providing timely medical pedicure in the according facilities or on house call basis for instance is a lot cheaper than diabetic foot treatment....)

So yes Donna - you are entitled to pedicures and massages, society needs to find more and better ways to organize that.

P.S.: Side note on the horse issue - where we can simply see that animal rights have probably progressed further - especially in terms of public awareness - than fat rights over the past decades. Dan Blocker passed away almost exactly half a century ago.....
 

loopytheone

Staff member
Administrator
Global Moderator
***
Joined
Dec 14, 2012
Messages
5,133
Location
England
Curiosity sent me to encyclopedia Google and according to a few searches, I found this:
"Deb Bennett, PhD, founder of the Equine Studies Institute and an expert in the biomechanics of horses, has advised that the “Total weight of rider plus tack must not exceed 250 lbs. There is no horse alive, of any breed, any build, anywhere, that can go more than a few minutes with more weight on its back than this. "

In my original post, I likened being turned away from a riding facility to being denied access to other places, such as nail salons and amusement parks. That was a bad comparison on my part, for sure. A living being's needs must always be considered. Mea culpa. I was going on information given to me nearly forty years ago (I was 17) by a boy who was interested in my friend and most likely would've said anything to make either of us happy. Learning that 250 max weight with the tack, my 225 body plus the tack most likely put that poor creature through hell because I'm sure together we were well over the 250 limit.

It makes me wonder about horses used in the rodeo, movie, and television industries. Surely male stars, especially the taller, more muscled ones, weigh close to or over that 250 mark. When I was younger, I was infatuated with Dan Blocker, the actor who played Hoss Cartwright on Bonanza. At 6'4" and 300 pounds, he was regularly filmed on horseback and even owned horses himself. I love horses, an affinity I discovered watching Blocker on my tv screen and later during those high school days traipsing out to the ranch every Saturday to ride, but it pains me to think that I contributed to possible abuse.

That being said, places like chiropractor's offices, salons, amusement parks, et.al. should at least TRY to be as accessible to everyone as possible. There's a lot of argument over whether being fat constitutes a handicap, and as such is covered under the ADA regarding accessibility. "Reasonable accommodation" would apply if it does, but there's still argument over what constitutes reasonable, and what smaller size merchants are expected to spend on their equipment. Let's face it, a pedicure chair rated for up to 200 pounds will be vastly less expensive than one rated to 500 pounds, and of course small businesses have to watch their spending especially at start up when this type of equipment is purchased, or they lose their bottom line. I'll be honest, I don't LIKE agreeing with loopy on this issue, but I believe she is correct in her conclusion. Riding a horse, getting a pedicure or a massage, or riding the tilt-o-whirl aren't things I'm entitled to. The idealist inside me wants to do those things (or I did before sickness took my ability to walk away,) but the realist knows it's not fair to expect them and the world just isn't one size fits all.

As far as the fat shaming aspect, well I'm not going to beat that dead horse today. I'll leave that to someone with more spoons. Fatphobia and Fatmisia have left me in critical need of more spoons.

I wouldn't feel bad about these things, Donna. We learn more about animals and what is healthy for them as time progresses. Even looking at my pet dogs, there are decisions I made about their health 15 years ago that I would make drastically different with the new information that has come to light since. If the horse showed no signs of disapproval when you were riding/mounting it, then I doubt it was in any acute strain or anything at the time, if that helps.

I read agouderia's post before replying and I'm not surprised to hear that your horse-riding celebrity crush was making movies some years ago, when we knew less about horses. I know that some heavier actors still ride horses for movies and stuff and yeah, I dunno about how fair that is on the horses. Though as I understand it, horse actors are ridden less in general than everyday riding horses, and they use multiple horses to represent one 'in movie' horse, so maybe that has something to do with it? I wouldn't call it abuse anyway, it's just a case of people learning more as time goes on.

I 100% agree that places, especially those associated with personal health/wellbeing, should be as accessible to everyone as possible. I always take note in doctors waiting rooms and look if there are wider/no armrest chairs and things like that, for instance. People of every size have a right to exist comfortably in this world, like agouderia says. You can make bigger chairs, wider doorways and stronger equipment. It's only really any different when it comes to horses because that's an animal, and you can't just buy a stronger one.

In this debate I think it's important to not compare the proverbial apples & oranges.

Because leisure activities, entertainment and sports is one thing.

Daily necessities, access to services in the field of personal or medical care or basic life needs is something totally different and mest be judged on a different scale imo.

Take pedicure as an example (similar applies to massages) - if it's actual pedicure (not toe nail painting!), this is an important personal care, borderline medical service that can be especially important for people of size. Making sure that people of all sizes who need them recieve access is a public health issue - so finding a way of organizing that enough size friendly equipment is available is a task that needs legislative and administrative attention.
(Also by the way for cost reasons - providing timely medical pedicure in the according facilities or on house call basis for instance is a lot cheaper than diabetic foot treatment....)

So yes Donna - you are entitled to pedicures and massages, society needs to find more and better ways to organize that.

P.S.: Side note on the horse issue - where we can simply see that animal rights have probably progressed further - especially in terms of public awareness - than fat rights over the past decades. Dan Blocker passed away almost exactly half a century ago.....

I know I said very similar things above, but thiiiiis! Fat people deserve to be allowed to look after themselves just like smaller people do. I'm actually pretty passionate about this topic, too! Humans are great at building and inventing things, and I know we can make cost-effective furniture and equipment etc that is suitable for fat people if we try. Society just doesn't want to try because a) fatphobia and b) initial costs. The latter of which is understandably a concern for businesses but hey, some things are more important than a business bank account. ...I'll get off my soapbox now, hah.
 

Angelette

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 6, 2022
Messages
108
Location
a van down by the river.

waldo

***
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
621
Location
Indiana

Just to clarify: the title is a bit misleading, because it suggests that she 'called them out' before being denied service. The 'shout out' to the ranch was AFTER they denied her service.

My guess is that they looked at her and suspected she was potentially too heavy. They then told her about the 240 lb weight limit, and she went off on them. She supposedly is a big muckety-muck on TikTok, and was there with other TikTok 'influencers' and others including Jon Bon Jovi (something to do with promoting a wine company that he owns). So instead of just telling them "no problem: I am just under that weight", for which they would have had to take her word; she let her embarrassment and anger take control; and she told them that she is over the limit (probably only marginally so, unless the pics I saw of her are not representative) and dared them to act accordingly. She played stupid games and won stupid prizes (as they say). Well, I AM speculating, but just also remember there are always 2 sides to the story.


I wouldn't feel bad about these things, Donna. We learn more about animals and what is healthy for them as time progresses. Even looking at my pet dogs, there are decisions I made about their health 15 years ago that I would make drastically different with the new information that has come to light since. If the horse showed no signs of disapproval when you were riding/mounting it, then I doubt it was in any acute strain or anything at the time, if that helps.

I read agouderia's post before replying and I'm not surprised to hear that your horse-riding celebrity crush was making movies some years ago, when we knew less about horses. I know that some heavier actors still ride horses for movies and stuff and yeah, I dunno about how fair that is on the horses. Though as I understand it, horse actors are ridden less in general than everyday riding horses, and they use multiple horses to represent one 'in movie' horse, so maybe that has something to do with it? I wouldn't call it abuse anyway, it's just a case of people learning more as time goes on.

I 100% agree that places, especially those associated with personal health/wellbeing, should be as accessible to everyone as possible. I always take note in doctors waiting rooms and look if there are wider/no armrest chairs and things like that, for instance. People of every size have a right to exist comfortably in this world, like agouderia says. You can make bigger chairs, wider doorways and stronger equipment. It's only really any different when it comes to horses because that's an animal, and you can't just buy a stronger one.



I know I said very similar things above, but thiiiiis! Fat people deserve to be allowed to look after themselves just like smaller people do. I'm actually pretty passionate about this topic, too! Humans are great at building and inventing things, and I know we can make cost-effective furniture and equipment etc that is suitable for fat people if we try. Society just doesn't want to try because a) fatphobia and b) initial costs. The latter of which is understandably a concern for businesses but hey, some things are more important than a business bank account. ...I'll get off my soapbox now, hah.

Regarding this part of your post:
" People of every size have a right to exist comfortably in this world, like agouderia says. You can make bigger chairs, wider doorways and stronger equipment. It's only really any different when it comes to horses because that's an animal, and you can't just buy a stronger one."

This is not totally true. There are heavy horses (aka draft horses) like the Clydesdales and Percherons. These horses are not only very large (male Clydesdales regularly reach 2000 lb), but they are also very strong for their weight relative to a quarter horse and other common riding horses. So, the standard 20 % load (rider + gear) could probably be expanded to 25% (or more?) for these type of horses. With a 25 % load, a 2000 lb heavy horse could potentially carry 500 lb (about 50 lb of saddle et al. + rider). So: offering supersized horses for supersized customers seems like a great potential competitive advantage.

Like Donna, I also did a little online digging, after seeing this story pop up last week. I found some videos on Y.T. from a self-described horse-riding expert. In one case, he pointed out that it is not just the weight of the rider but how the person rides that matters. A knowledgeable rider will know how to keep his/her center of mass properly balanced to minimize the horse's effort to retain balance. This can make a HUGE difference on how much strain is put on that horse.
In other words: 20 % max load is a somewhat arbitrary threshold. It reminds me of how they say that a BMI of 30 makes a person 'obese'.
 
Last edited:

Donna

the book version is always better
***
Joined
Sep 29, 2005
Messages
2,379
Location
the foothills of the Appalachians
According to what I saw firsthand on TikTok, the events happened as follows:

1. Remi attended an event and was advised she could not ride, despite previous experiences with riding.
2. She then posted a video to her TikTok of the ranch with the statement, "Shoutout to Deep Hollow Ranch in Montauk for making me leave because I weigh over 240.” The caption to the video suggested that weight limits for riders should be communicated on the ranch’s signage.
3. The owner’s teenage son then posted his own video, mocking her. I saw the video before it was deleted (I’m a bit of a TikTok addict) and he was clearly mocking her. He said, and I quote, “When you're not a fat bitch you can ride at Deep Hollow Ranch."
4. Remi then posted another video, quoting the teenager’s, complaining about the teen’s statement.
5. The ranch’s owners then issued a statement apologizing for the teen’s video and stating they “do not condone or agree with any part of that employee's video."

It appears to me, and someone please fill me in if I have missed something, that although Remi was snarky (that’s her m.o. I don’t particularly care for her style and it’s not how I would’ve handled things) in her response to being denied access to ride, the true complaint and what has people up in arms now, was because of this employee’s (the employee in question being the owner’s own son) subsequent fat shaming. I’m sorry, I’ve been denied service before, in front of friends, business colleagues, and even strangers, but luckily for me, I’ve never been called a “fat bitch” in the process. Being singled out is embarrassing enough, but to name call like that is adding insult to injury

I don’t care how confident one is, how they carry themselves in the public eye, or even if they say fat shaming doesn’t bother them, insults hurt. In Remi’s same situation, I would not take kindly to being called names the way she was. And there’s really no excuse to hurl them. There’s no justification for rude behavior.

We can debate until the cows come home about acceptable horseback riding weight limits, although I’m of the mind to defer to the PhD in horse biomechanics, or whether someone has a right to access certain businesses, but in the end we’re only obfuscating the issue here, which is the fat shaming. I didn’t want to unpack this, because it’s just so bloody exhausting, but here I am. Fat people, especially fat women, constantly have to prove their worth to society. We’re not allowed to have bad days, to go out looking anything less than cover model ready, we’re told we have to carry ourselves with confidence in the face of constant judgment and ridicule. We have to be sweet and pleasant all the time, and if we display anything less than the ideal “good fatty”, we’re not worthy of basic decency and respect. Even in the eyes of those who call themselves our admirers and/or allies.

If I continue with my opinion, I’m liable to alienate more than half the posters here and possibly get banned. I’m too old and I don’t have enough spoons to try and tilt at this particular windmill today. ‘Donna’ Quixote I am not. Carry on…
 
Last edited:

Angelette

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 6, 2022
Messages
108
Location
a van down by the river.
@Donna Thank you for being a witness to experience the spark of the situation. I previously guessed something had to be causing her to be more upset other than not being allowed to ride a horse.
 

waldo

***
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
621
Location
Indiana
According to what I saw firsthand on TikTok, the events happened as follows:

1. Remi attended an event and was advised she could not ride, despite previous experiences with riding.
2. She then posted a video to her TikTok of the ranch with the statement, "Shoutout to Deep Hollow Ranch in Montauk for making me leave because I weigh over 240.” The caption to the video suggested that weight limits for riders should be communicated on the ranch’s signage.
3. The owner’s teenage son then posted his own video, mocking her. I saw the video before it was deleted (I’m a bit of a TikTok addict) and he was clearly mocking her. He said, and I quote, “When you're not a fat bitch you can ride at Deep Hollow Ranch."
4. Remi then posted another video, quoting the teenager’s, complaining about the teen’s statement.
5. The ranch’s owners then issued a statement apologizing for the teen’s video and stating they “do not condone or agree with any part of that employee's video."

It appears to me, and someone please fill me in if I have missed something, that although Remi was snarky (that’s her m.o. I don’t particularly care for her style and it’s not how I would’ve handled things) in her response to being denied access to ride, the true complaint and what has people up in arms now, was because of this employee’s (the employee in question being the owner’s own son) subsequent fat shaming. I’m sorry, I’ve been denied service before, in front of friends, business colleagues, and even strangers, but luckily for me, I’ve never been called a “fat bitch” in the process. Being singled out is embarrassing enough, but to name call like that is adding insult to injury

I don’t care how confident one is, how they carry themselves in the public eye, or even if they say fat shaming doesn’t bother them, insults hurt. In Remi’s same situation, I would not take kindly to being called names the way she was. And there’s really no excuse to hurl them. There’s no justification for rude behavior.

We can debate until the cows come home about acceptable horseback riding weight limits, although I’m of the mind to defer to the PhD in horse biomechanics, or whether someone has a right to access certain businesses, but in the end we’re only obfuscating the issue here, which is the fat shaming. I didn’t want to unpack this, because it’s just so bloody exhausting, but here I am. Fat people, especially fat women, constantly have to prove their worth to society. We’re not allowed to have bad days, to go out looking anything less than cover model ready, we’re told we have to carry ourselves with confidence in the face of constant judgment and ridicule. We have to be sweet and pleasant all the time, and if we display anything less than the ideal “good fatty”, we’re not worthy of basic decency and respect. Even in the eyes of those who call themselves our admirers and/or allies.

If I continue with my opinion, I’m liable to alienate more than half the posters here and possibly get banned. I’m too old and I don’t have enough spoons to try and tilt at this particular windmill today. ‘Donna’ Quixote I am not. Carry on…

Simple question: was she 'in the right' for going on a snarky (as you yourself describe) rant against a business that was only enforcing a rule that they have every right to enforce? I feel this is much more than a fat issue. This seems to me to be an 'entitlement' issue that the younger people these days are plagued with. That is what happens when everyone gets a trophy for participation.

As far as this part of your post:
"We have to be sweet and pleasant all the time, and if we display anything less than the ideal “good fatty”, we’re not worthy of basic decency and respect. Even in the eyes of those who call themselves our admirers and/or allies."
This seems like simply a misandry-laced cheap shot.
 
Last edited:

waldo

***
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
621
Location
Indiana
@Donna Thank you for being a witness to experience the spark of the situation. I previously guessed something had to be causing her to be more upset other than not being allowed to ride a horse.

Except she didn't get called a fat b%%ch online, until SHE ATTACKED THEM online. Exactly, what was said by her and the staff to each other on that day remains unclear. Like I said, she appears to be hovering around their 240 lb weight limit and could have easily been given the benefit of the doubt if she had fibbed and claimed to be a few pounds lighter than she actually is (maybe 250-260?). I believe she turned this into an opportunity to play victim - unfortunately victimhood is social currency in the current society. The sad part is that this type of nonsense detracts from the true problem of fat discrimination in many areas of life that are not so trivial as getting to ride a horse or not.
 
Last edited:

Donna

the book version is always better
***
Joined
Sep 29, 2005
Messages
2,379
Location
the foothills of the Appalachians
Simple question: was she 'in the right' for going on a snarky (as you yourself describe) rant against a business that was only enforcing a rule that they have every right to enforce? I feel this is much more than a fat issue. This seems to me to be an 'entitlement' issue that the younger people these days are plagued with. That is what happens when everyone gets a trophy for participation.
As far as this part of your post:
"We have to be sweet and pleasant all the time, and if we display anything less than the ideal “good fatty”, we’re not worthy of basic decency and respect. Even in the eyes of those who call themselves our admirers and/or allies."
This seems like simply a misandry-laced cheap shot.

Was she in the right with her original snarky video? That’s not my judgment to make. I do not agree with her style, and it wasn’t how I would’ve handled the situation. But the point I was trying to make, and what keeps getting obfuscated in this ongoing discussion, is NOT that she was refused access to ride. The point of my post was that she was fat shamed. She was called a “fat bitch” because she complained. She was fat shamed. If the teen’s words were a justified response to her entitlement, why did the owners of the ranch apologize and denounce what he said? Why did they change their online blog to include weight related limitations for riding, including suggestions for the breeds of horses better suited to fat riders?

As for misandry and a cheap shot directed at you, no sir. My post actually was not addressed specifically to you, or I would’ve quoted you. My comments were based on my own experiences. When I was single, I attended dances and parties for fat people and their admirers. Twice I was approached by men whom I had no connection with, and so I declined their advances. Both times, when I apologized and told them I was not interested, I was called an “ungrateful fat bitch”, because I should be happy any man deems to find me worthy to spend time with him.

I shared my opinion based on my experience as a very fat woman in a thin centric world. I would love to hear the opinion of any of the BHM amongst us as to their experience(s) with fat shaming. From my interactions with them, I see it happening, but I don’t even begin to understand how it impacts them because I am not a man and/or I do not identify as male. Isn’t that kind of the function of a discussion forum?

If you feel my post was an insult to you, or anyone else, I apologize. No insult was intended or implied.
 
Top