Read Things No One Will Tell Fat Girls for Free Online Page A

And amass they did! As soon as food could be reserved and kept for future survival, the need to have more food for longer survival became paramount. And an acknowledgment of class distinction began: Those who had more would live longer, and were therefore more powerful. Those who had less were less powerful and had a lower chance of survival. This, in essence, is where class systems may have first come into play.
    Because of the desire to climb to the top and the need to access resources to do so, some historians say that crops became of utmost importance, and more farmers were needed to generate more product. With this quest, then, women became the “farmer-making machines,” and therefore coveted property. Unlike during the hunter-gathererperiod, women could now have as many children as they could feed, which allowed for large families of future farmers to develop.
    As female bodies turned into property, virginity became a desirable trait (it was essentially a promise that the woman hadn’t “given” any farmers to someone else), and it’s often said that this is how patriarchal rule was interwoven into the growing society. Women (property) were now at a distinct disadvantage, which is part of the reason we see the gender injustice that we do today. Because women were minimized then, they continue to be so today. 1 That loss of power and influence is why, in part, marketing and advertising specifically targets women and their role in society. Now, know that this is historical conjecture, as hunter-gatherers and farmers didn’t exactly hand over their diaries to us, but this theory is supported by many scholars and certainly warrants a few moments (or more) of consideration.
    Part 2: The Slenderization for Class Distinction

    In the early to mid-1800s the United States was in quite the predicament: Food was scarce, so people with larger bodies tended to be wealthier and had enough to eat. Because of that, they were thought to be healthier.
    In her essay, “The Inner Corset: A Brief History of Fat in the United States,” Laura Fraser lets us in on the secret:
    Once upon a time, a man with a thick gold watch swaying from a big, round paunch was the very picture of American prosperity and vigor. Accordingly . . . years ago, a beautiful woman had plump cheeks and arms, and she wore a . . . bustle to emphasize her full, substantial hips. Women were sexy if they were heavy. In those days, Americans knew that a layer of fat was a sign that you could afford to eat well and that you stood a better chance of fighting off infectious diseases than most people. 2
    But that all changed very quickly.
    In the late 1800s, advances in transportation made it easier to distribute food widely. With this came an influx of large groups of immigrant workers, many of whom had shorter, stockier bodies. The visibility of stockier bodies, combined with the food influx, meant that now most Americans were able to “fill out,” and the gap between the large wealthy bodies and the smaller poor bodies began to close. The upper class soon sought a way to differentiate themselves and reclaim their social power over the lower classes, and they did this partially by idealizing thinness. Adding to this, people romanticized the frail bodies of several European artists at the time who had tuberculosis, and soon Americans were grabbing onto the NEW ideal: slenderness as a form of class distinction.
    No longer was it best to be fat: Thin bodies became all the rage, a sign of prosperity and style.
    Previously, the medical field had warned of a link between thinness and certain disorders, and cautioned women against losing too much weight. Now, society’s tune had changed: The fashionable figure was suddenly a slender one that seemed liberated and elite, and, even though at first doctors didn’t endorse this obsession with thinness (in fact, they fought it), eventually they caved to societal pressure and the chance to