Is This Fat-Hate?

15 thoughts on Is This Fat-Hate?

1. ah, the dark art of dog-whistle politics. i never see these things at first glance either. the argument that they’re done intentionally is that in advertising, as in good art, nothing is left to chance. you have X amount of space to fill so the odds of something being a coincidence is low. i thought everyone was off their rocker when they said the Paris Hilton Obama as celeb ad subliminally portrayed miscegenation, but when i looked at it again, especially the inclusion of the Washington monument (phallic symbol), i thought they may be right.

   orlando Patterson’s interpretation of the 3am ad as harking back to birth of a nation seemed farfetched to me, but upon reviewing the images, there is something weirdly sinister about it: children, house ot night, mother, somebody lurking in the bushes…what does that have to do with an international event? looks more like a burglary and who do “hard working white americans” in TX, OH, PA fear may commit a burglery?. the point is these things are rarely a coincidence.

   so the argument here is that the word heavy is used and the last shot of Christie is slowed down, so you can see his fat jingle.

2. I think the ad is much subtler than NYT’s painting of it makes it out to be–for sure. But if the context the ad provides is more accurate, the term “threw his weight around” shouldn’t be considered benign, especially with the frowning, double-chinned Christie picture they toss up there right along with “threw his weight around.”

   And beyond that, that term is not, in my experience, the most common for what Christie is accused of, and is a loaded term for anyone who feels they have struggled with their weight.

3. The thing is, Christie almost certainly threw his weight around. Marcy Wheeler has been chronicling this saga in minute detail at Firedoglake.

   The ad is based on solid fact. Christie did seem to get special treatment after his 2005 traffic accident. In 2002, he turned the wrong way down a one-way street and sent a motorcyclist to the hospital, but he walked away without a ticket. He really did hide the interest he received on an reported loan to a subordinate while he was a U.S. Attorney–a likely infraction of a federal law he was tasked with enforcing.

4. That should read “traffic incident” not “traffic accident,” above.

5. It’s subtle. It’s subtle enough that it could have been intentional, but it’s totally deniable. It’s subtle enough that it could have been an unconscious connection.

   I don’t know how ads like these are constructed, but I’m pretty sure they think through every detail. They probably chose those words on purpose, though it’s not clear if that purpose was a subtle prod at his size.

   I think that slow close up, or fade or whatever on the ‘bad guy’ is a pretty cliche political ad thing, and I think that if the connection you’re trying to make is between him and craptastic car stuff, showing him getting out of the car makes sense. However, given that it’s a political ad, they want subconscious cues, and deniability. I would see how it compares to the rest of the anti-christie ads.

   I watched it the first time without sound, it wasn’t clear what the issue was. You may want to include a transcript.

6. the term “threw his weight around” shouldn’t be considered benign, especially with the frowning, double-chinned Christie picture they toss up there right along with “threw his weight around.”

   When I hear the term “threw his weight around” the image that comes to my head initially is a big guy, muscular/powerful rather than fat, using his imposing physical presence to dominate an interaction. More broadly, I think of the idea of someone using their power or influence to coerce others. In other words, fat doesn’t come into my mind at all; the term is all about strength when I hear it. I’m a fairly big guy both in terms of build and in terms of weight, so I’m familiar with the kinds of language used to describe both, and I have to say the idea of using “threw his weight around” didn’t strike me as fat-hate. Watching the ad, I didn’t necessarily get the fat connotation either. It felt more like calling someone out for routinely abusing their power, especially with the physical injury to the motorcyclist emphasized.

   I think in this ad there might be an interesting issue regarding the issue of physical size, gender, and aggressiveness. If Chris Christie was Christine Christie, I think I would have interpreted this ad as at least partially aimed at weight, but because Christie is a man the same words feel more like a reference to his aggressiveness and abuse of power than to his size. I feel like theres more there that I want to say, but I’m pretty much drained from writing cover letters and seeing patients, so yeah, hopefully someone else can make sense of it.

7. C’mon. People here are perfectly capable of calling out dog-whistle politics when it’s aimed at Democrats. The more effective ads are always the ones that maintain deniability–what’s important is the context in which they operate and the effect that has both on voters and in perpetuating phobias.

   I think the NYT pieces does a great job of establishing the context and the effects, and I do find this ad strategy abhorrent, even though I’d pretty much always prefer to see a Democrat win over a Republican.

8. Maybe you don’t see it because you’re not fat.

   When I read the article and saw the ad, I felt that same hateful, shameful burning I get sometimes when I think everyone is looking at me and saying, internally, nasty things about what I am eating, wearing, doing, how I am moving, you name it. I felt that little spiral of shame spin up in my stomach, the one that says it’s worse to be fat than anything, that it means I am a lazy, gross, unwanted, useless pig. That shame tells ME I am not fit for anything, that I am useless and not to be relied on. After all, have you seen how I look? And, I think, it’s a not at all subtle dog whistle (along with all the public running Corzine has been doing) that tells the people watching that same exact thing: can you trust this big fattie to be the governor? he clearly has no self control, watch him lumber around! Whether the allegations are true or not (and I have no doubt they totally are) doesn’t make it any less offensive to crouch the presentation of these allegations in these terms, terms that not so subtly play on the physicality of the accused.

   Personally: I was offended, angered, disgusted and, worst of all, shamed.

   Sure doesn’t make me want to support Corzine.

9. I’m inclined to agree with the article.

   Quoted:
   In a recent survey conducted by Monmouth University, voters were asked to say the first thing that came to mind about Mr. Christie. “Fat” was one of the most frequent responses…And in focus group sessions conducted for the governor’s campaign over the summer, voters called attention to Mr. Christie’s size without being prompted.

   So, Mr. Christie is perceived by a significant percentage of the population as fat. Well, I think most of us here are aware that when people are members of a disadvantaged/oppressed group (for example, women), they/we are seen as members of that group first, and human beings only secondarily. In other words, we lose some of our individuality, and become deep-down-associated, in the general public mindset, with the stereotypes of the disadvantaged group in question. Now, I think you can dig up a few good stereotypes of a *few* disadvantaged groups, but while I am infamously oblivious of stereotypes, I am having a really, really hard time coming up with *any* stereotypes of fat people that could be considered positive. In fact, most of the ones with which I am familiar would seem to be very inconducive to the skill set we typically expect/hope for in a public official.
   So basically, Mr. Christie is *already* seen as fat even before he is a person. It doesn’t take that much more to drag the reflex reaction to the surface. Think of the difference between when a woman is called catty versus bitchy. Technically the same thing, and neither extraordinarily polite…but the latter reinforces the message that she is a woman, and thus not as much an individual.

   Jeff at Alas, a Blog has a good take on this that is worth a read.

10. In my thesaurus, the phrase “throw one’s weight around” carries connotations of “be vigorous”, “act proudly”, “act insolently”. The following are given suitable synonyms (among other synonyms that are less suitable) in context):

    meddle, lord it, come it over, pull rank, ride roughshod over

    It also included “be a law unto oneself”, language similar to which is already in the ad. Another possible term they could have used is “cock a snook”, but I don’t know if that’s common enough in US parlance.

    While I am a self-confessed tubby bitch, and I personally did not feel like the ad was targeting weight as an issue, equally it would have been possible to construct the ad without using the word “weight” at all. I don’t think it could have been done without using images of the person being targeted, and given that it’s about motoring violations, showing him in (or getting out of) a motor vehicle makes sense.

    Is it “dog-whistle” politics? I couldn’t say. But I suppose these days an advertiser should be careful to avoid the accusation if they aren’t doing it, as well as subtle ifthey are. Meaning wisdom would have suggested not using the word “weight”, but maybe rephrasing that part to say something like, “in both cases Chris Christie rode roughshod over the law as US Attorney, and got off easy”. Indeed, if the target is really about a political figure flouting the law, then the juxtaposition of “riding roughshod over the law” and “US Attorney” ought to be gold dust, implying as it does gross hypocrisy (a cardinal sin in politics to be caught in that!)

    So there is at least a case to be answered here, that it really is about making an issue of his weight and waistline rather than his behaviour.

11. This could just be me, but I saw him smugly getting out of a large SUV as symbolic of his apparent disregard for other motorists and their safety. But maybe I’m just reading too much into it.

12. I live in Philly, so I’ve seen this ad more times then I can count. I can probably quote all the ads on both site verbatum (The philly stations run thoughout new jersey, so I get to watch this campaign even though I don’t vote in it, awesome. Also I work in a doctor’s office, so tv is on ALL DAY). I have to say I’ve never thought the campaign seemed based on size at all. There are multiple ads talking about the fact that he has used his government influence to get himself or friends out of trouble, I honestly have always just seen thier “threw his weight around” comment as a way to not contiunously be redundent.

13. The ad is based on solid fact.

    I don’t see what that has to do with whether there’s a dog whistle here. No one’s criticizing the allegations against Christie, just the framing. Aren’t we all beyond the 101 point that bigoted framing/language is wrong even when it’s directed at a bad guy, because it hurts the entire marginalized population in question, not just the specific target?

    It’s subtle, I agree — and after reading about it several times before I watched it, I expected it would hit me over the head. But the clincher for me is that his big, fat head pops up right at the moment the VO says, “threw his weight around.” Up to that point, we haven’t seen an image of Christie, and then bam, there it is. Why match it up to those words? Why use those words at all, as opposed to “abused his power” or something? That’s not a coincidence.

    From what I’ve heard, I’m sure not going to be upset if this guy loses the election, but that’s not the point. The point is, stoking fat hatred to damage someone’s reputation hurts me and all other fat people, just like stoking sexism to damage Sarah Palin’s hurts me and all other women. (And it seems so painfully unnecessary when it’s done to further damage people whose own actions provide plenty of reasons to hate them.)

14. Pingback: Does Chris Christie look fat in this? | Legal-Sleaze.com

15. Cleofaye: As someone who spends a lot of time in Philadelphia doctors’ offices, I’m begging you: is it possible to turn the TV off? Remove it/them entirely?

    An unpleasant necessity (going to the doctor) is raised to the screaming point by the ubiquitousness of the television sets.

Comments are currently closed.