quote:A woman walks to her local corner shop. She walks slowly, like a duck or a dodo, her legs apart. Her eyes are lowered, as if paying avid attention to the pavement beneath, and when she passes another human being, she is careful not to raise them. In a pale green shirt the size of a small curtain, and a long black skirt that is almost coffin-like in its rectangular bulkiness, she is not only clammy and uncomfortable; she is in fear of ridicule.
quote:Two years ago, Campos published a book, The Obesity Myth, in which he argued that the public has been misinformed about obesity; when it comes to fat statistics, doctors and the media cherry-pick their data. He also argued that fat people are discriminated against in daily life by a skinny elite, which projects its more general anxieties about the world's over-consumption on to an easy target: a poor and heavy underclass.
quote:Campos does not believe that it would be right to discriminate against fat people even if their state were chosen; but the fact that, in his view, it isn't, means that, ultimately, they should be protected under the law in the same way that, for instance, the disabled are. Is this necessary? In Campos's view, it is. Fat people are less likely to be promoted. They earn less than the thin. Worst of all, they are unable to get medical insurance, irrespective of their general health.
I just picked some interesting quotes from the article. The whole thing really needs to be read to get all of the information and context. I really liked that the point was made that losing weight is a good thing, along with the fact that fat people don't deserve prejudice and hate. It seemed to be a pretty balanced article, pointing out that even fat-rights groups discriminate against members who dare to lose weight.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Except for the insurance issue, I imagine almost all of the discrimination suffered by the obese is suffered equally by anyone else who falls under the category of 'unattractive.'
Edit to add that of course this category is arbitrary and mostly fixed by our culture.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Destineer, other groups given the tag "unattractive" do not receive anywhere close to the same degree of scorn or ridicule. And certainly don't have people watching what they eat.
Katarain, excellent article. Thanks for sharing that. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
A 'fat rights group'? Wow...bear in mind that tihs is coming from a big fat fatty, but isn't the proper solution to fat-discrimination rather obvious? Maybe...oh, say, channeling that energy away from politics to somewhere else?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Rakeesh, why is it an either-or choice?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, I haven't really given the issue much consideration. The idea of a fat-people's rights group is a completely new one to me. All I can think of right now is the following: why is it desireable to make it easier to be fat in America (throughout the First World, really)? Isn't it dreadfully easy already?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Keeping in mind that I have never felt any desire to join one of these advocacy groups, I believe you misunderstand their intent.
They don't want to make it easier to be (or become) fat; they want to make it more acceptable. That is, they wish to remove the social stigma -- the "hating people for their own good" attitude referred to in the article.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote:they wish to remove the social stigma
Why would you want to remove the stigma? Is obesity good for you? Is it a desirable option in life? Would you like your children to be obese?
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
With the exception of the insurance issue, I don't really have a big problem with this. I'm as bleeding-heart as the next Ithacan, on top of having the first-hand experience of having been "obese", but I can't bring myself to believe that the morbidly overweight need MORE acceptance from our society.
Does being fat make you feel really unwanted and alienated? Yeah, it does, I remember how strangers started treating me differently when I gained a lot of weight in college. It sucks. But, unlike being born with a different skin color or losing a leg, my fat was very much something I was choosing, every time I sat down and decided that I wanted 64 ounces of Coke and french fries more than I wanted to be healthy.
My husband and I watched "Super-Size Me" the other night (which I HIGHLY recommend, it's edutainment!), and one of the guys they interviewed pointed out that, if someone lit up next to you at a restaurant, it'd be perfectly acceptable to get on their case about it, both for their own health and your own. Now, someone else being fat doesn't directly affect one's own health the way secondhand smoke does, so I don't think public ridicule is an acceptable response, but neither is public support. My husband was really surprised when he went in for a checkup earlier this year and the doctor didn't say a thing about the extra 40 or 50 pounds he was carrying on his chest. Hello?
So yeah, it sucks to be less valued by society because of your appearance. It also sucks to have a dramatically shorter life, and to have what years you DO have filled with weight-related medical problems. But the answer isn't to make fat people feel better about themselves or to make society value them more. The answer is to stop poisoning ourselves with crap food and learn to take responsibility for the amount and kind of food we eat.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Ah, so neither of you read the entire article? Or is it simply that you disbelieved the health-related claims it made?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:one of the guys they interviewed pointed out that, if someone lit up next to you at a restaurant, it'd be perfectly acceptable to get on their case about it, both for their own health and your own.
I don't really agree with that. It would be acceptable to get on their case about it because of the threat that it poses to your health, but not to theirs. This is complicated by the societally borne costs of providing health care to those who damage their health by smoking and can't provide for their own care, of course, but even so, giving someone grief for doing something that only directly effects them rubs me the wrong way.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
I read it, it was meandering and mostly fact-less.
And Noemon, I agree, I wouldn't give a stranger grief for being fat or for smoking in a designated smoking area.
The idea that being extremely overweight is an acceptable choice in our society, and that those who choose to become so deserve our support, is irresponsible and misleading. Fat is not, in the vast majority of cases, some mysterious, inexplicable thing that the average person is unable to avoid and can do nothing about. Americans as a whole are eating WAY TOO MUCH, and what we're eating is getting lower and lower in quality and nutrition.
If you want to actually do some good and change the way society views this issue, work on changing our attitudes towards food and the way it's marketed. Make it socially unacceptable to go to McDonalds for breakfast and Pizza Hut for lunch. Teach kids that they deserve better than mass-marketed pre-processed crap that's so far removed from the animals and plants it's supposedly based on. Stop treating obesity like it's a disease that strikes at random, instead of the natural result of eating 4000 calories a day.
But don't just tell fat people that it's okay they're fat. It's not.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
The social stigma has done nothing to help me lose weight. In fact, it only helped me gain more.
My desire to decrease my PCOS symptoms to increase my chances of successfully having children has done a lot more to help me lose weight.
I would venture that the social stigma does nothing for MOST fat people out there, but make them more depressed and eat more.
As if the scoffing remarks that people make toward fat people are really "for their own good." I don't buy it for a second.
And yeah, I second rivka. Read the article--it addressed this point.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
I disbelieve the health-related claims it makes. Like Campos in that article, I'm 5'8" and pretty close to how heavy he was when he was considered technically obese. I am also, I'm told by my doctor. Thankfully, I only look overweight, and not obese, but I hate it, and I'm trying to do something about it.
I'm blessed with good genes when it comes to cholesterol. At my worst, I was only borderline high on the bad cholesterol and only borderline low on the good cholesterol. But I definitely do think that it's unhealthy.
Worse, it's gross looking. It's bad enough when they legislate away the freedom of people to choose who they hire or rent to on the basis of race, religion or sexual orientation. But to even talk about doing on the basis of weight... that's just really appalling.
I sit on the train, and the fatty next to me is taking up part of my seat. It's not as though he can help it; he's just too big for the seat. But why does that give him the right to squeeze me?
I've read articles about people who were forced to pay for a second airplane ticket, because they take up two seats. Well, duh.
And speaking as someone who is quite aware of how hard it is to lose weight, I don't see at all how it's something that could ever be considered outside the realm of choice. What ever happened to the idea of individual responsibility?
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I think you're confusing not discriminating and being nasty with support.
To stop discriminating based on size (and we're not just talking about the severely obese here) and to stop being nasty because you see a fat person eat something is NOT the same thing as supporting their fatness.
If you had actually read the article with an open mind, you would have seen that. And you would have seen that many (if not most) of the people who were talked to or about in the fat rights movement agreed that losing weight is a good thing.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Lisa, so you think it's okay to discriminate against someone and not hire them for a job because they're gross looking?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Rivka, I read the entire article and I do discount the claim that one can be morbidly obese and it not affect their health. There was no real scientific evidence presented in the article to discount that. I saw one person say, in essence, that her mother was 82 and fat so obviously fat isn't unhealthy. That's completely bogus. It's like saying cigarettes aren't dangerous because you know one person who smoked fifty years and didn't get cancer - that ignores the many who DO get cancer and the evidence that points to a direct link between smoking and cancer rates.
I think one can definitely be overweight and healthy - I do believe our height-weight scales are ridiculous. My daughter Emily is considered overweight by the charts because she has much more muscle than most kids her age and she's short - the kid's an accomplished gymnast and as healthy as can be. My doctor told me he completely ignored the height-weight tables in kids like Em because they just don't apply. If you have excellent cardio vascular health, your labs are all good, you feel great and have no medical problems then I think doctors shouldn't care about your weight. But the fact is that the morbidly obese often do have cardiac and respiratory ailments and no amount of screaming about how fat isn't unhealthy can take away the fact that the morbidly obese do have problems walking uphill and can't do much physical activity. My aunt who is morbidly obese can barely walk anymore because her knees and ankles are so weak, she is constant pain from them and can't walk more than a half block or so without having to sit down and rest, panting heavily when she does. That's not healthy. It's not something I think we should accept, in the manner that we should pay her on the head and say "It's all right, there's nothing wrong with being this big." Because there is something wrong with it.
Should she be discriminated against, in jobs for example? No, not if she can do the job. But the fact is there are many jobs she cannot do. She cannot stand for any extended period, she can't lift anything, she can't walk anywhere - even the physical activity of a normal office job is beyond her. As it happens, she doesn't work. Should an employer be forced to hire her, if there is a similarly qualified individual who doesn't have those types of limitations? I say no.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I really think whether or not there are health issues associated with being fat is not the issue. (Although, I happen to think that sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't.)
The article is really talking about treating fat people like human beings, and not defining them by their size. If you think that it serves some greater purpose by ostracizing them and being cruel to "help" them to lose weight, then there really is no talking to you (general "you"). We disagree on a fundamental level.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
The article uses the journalist's conversation with two people as its basis. Neither of them impressed me much.
Both of them deny a link between obesity and health problems. What logic do they use to deny the link? Not much. They say that the studies are "cherry-picked" and that its "junk-science".
It came off a lot like the people who deny a link between HIV and AIDS. Or who deny the link between smoking and disease.
The female she was interviewing even used the favorite line of the "smoking isn't bad for your health" crowd. She says:
quote:But she points out that her mother, who is built the same way, is 82.
The man's logic for why obesity appears to cause diabetes was equally laughable. I think people should be highly sceptical of anyone who thinks they have all the answers, and who dismisses research by professionals with the casual fallacies of a lay-person.
That's not to say that I am against laws dealing with discrimination against obese people. I do, however, agree that attempting to remove all stigma may be going too far.
As a society, we eat a lot of food. In general, far more than we burn through daily activity. So people are going to gain weight. If we remove all stigma from being obese, and pretend like it makes no difference health wise, then why would anyone go through all the hard work required to stay at a healthy weight? Should we just say "to hell with it" and just all get fat?
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote: Should she be discriminated against, in jobs for example? No, not if she can do the job. But the fact is there are many jobs she cannot do. She cannot stand for any extended period, she can't lift anything, she can't walk anywhere - even the physical activity of a normal office job is beyond her. As it happens, she doesn't work. Should an employer be forced to hire her, if there is a similarly qualified individual who doesn't have those types of limitations? I say no.
Of course they shouldn't be forced to hire her if she can't do the job. I don't think that this is what discrimination is really referring to. If you don't get a job that you ARE physically capable to do because of the way you look, then THat is discrimination. Making sure that your employees are physically capable for what the job requires is not.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
quote:And speaking as someone who is quite aware of how hard it is to lose weight, I don't see at all how it's something that could ever be considered outside the realm of choice. What ever happened to the idea of individual responsibility?
Quoted for agreement.
I spent my teenage and college years getting progressively more overweight until I finally crossed into the wonderful world of obesity. And I honestly had NO IDEA how it was happening, except the vague I idea that I wasn't eating well or exercising enough. It seems so obvious now, of course... I was eating 3000 to 4000 calories a DAY, when my body only needs 1800 or so. So I joined Weight Watchers, at over 200 pounds, and learned what I was doing wrong and how to change it.
It wasn't easy, and several years later it still isn't the easiest thing in the world, but being healthy and eating a proper amount of food is now a higher priority for me than eating an entire pizza or anything involving a "bucket". I've taken responsibility for what I eat, and it feels wonderful. I'm also about 30 pounds lighter, hovering right over the "Healthy" range, and I'm confident that I'll continue to lose weight as I watch how many calories I get in a day.
Calories and fat content are printed on almost everything we eat. It's easy and free to find out how much you should be eating, and you have the choice to stop eating when the numbers on the boxes add up too high. Yet somehow we've got this idea that obesity is something that's done TO us, and despite the death sentence it warrants, that we need to come to terms with it and accept it rather than taking responsibility for it and ending it.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
But it's a personal decision to take responsibility and end it. My decision has NOTHING to do with YOU. The fat guy at McDonald's decision has nothing to do with you or anyone else scoffing at him. You might say that maybe he'll make the decision to take responsibility because of your attitude, but I doubt it. I think the thing that will really help him is getting sick of getting tired from walking just one flight of stairs.
Will a healthier American culture help, too? Certainly. And I'm sure it will help a lot more than someone turning their nose up at the fat guy eating a hamburger at the same time they're also sitting in a McDonalds eating the same darn thing.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Well, it's true that people are discriminated against based on how they look. As an employer myself at times, I definitely discriminate based on how a person is dressed. If you show up for an interview in baggy jeans and a ripped t-shirt and piercings all over you I'm not going to hire you over the person that comes in a business suit, well groomed and professional looking. Is that right or wrong?
I'm overweight right now - not morbidly obese, not to the extent my aunt is but I'm not by any means "thin." I'm working hard to lose the weight and have had some success and I admit that one of the reasons (though certainly not the most important one - that's health) I'm trying to lose it is because I intend to be looking for a job in about three years and I want to project the most impressive image I can when I interview with school principals. Does my weight have anything to do with how good of an English teacher I'll be? No, of course not. But I do accept that appearences matter and we can probably all agree that is wrong, but it still doesn't change the fact that it exists.
So I acknowledge what the people in the article are saying - that fat people are discriminated against unfairly and that is wrong. But I'm not sure that the way to fix that is by making turning weight into a protected status, like race is. Because at the root level, I do believe that it's unfair to discriminate against something people don't have control over, like their skin color, but there are some valid reasons to disrciminate against someone who doesn't take care of their body. In my husband's profession, for example, an obese firefighter is a liability to the public and to his crew. In the military, same thing. There are places where physical fitness is part of the job. Making obesity a protected status implies it's NEVER okay to discriminate against someone who is overweight, where I believe that it is okay in some cases. I do not believe it's ever okay to discriminate against a person's skin color, so I have to say I don't think obesity should be protected in the manner that race is.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:As if the scoffing remarks that people make toward fat people are really "for their own good." I don't buy it for a second.
Speaking as a fat person, I know I'm always deeply grateful to people who regard me with disgust. I find that self-loathing is extremely helpful to my diet regimen.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote:So is fat the new race? I don't believe that it is, though it could become so in the future. But that's not to say that thinking about it in these terms isn't a useful corrective. If we're allowed to want fat people to lose weight, then they're allowed to want thin people to be kind - or, better still, blind. Best not to forget, then, where we started - with a woman walking down a street, feeling as though she might as well be stark naked.
'I know ... that when a thin person looks at a fat person, the thin person considers the fat person less virtuous than he,' writes Judith Moore in her memoir, Fat Girl. 'The fat person lacks willpower, pride, this wretched attitude, "self-esteem", and does not care about friends and family because if he or she did care about friends and family, he or she would not wander the earth looking like a repulsive sow, rhinoceros, hippo, elephant, general wide-mawed flesh-flopping flabby monster.'
Imagine feeling like that. Think before you click your tongue against the roof of your mouth.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
Well, for the third time, I wouldn't "scoff" at the fat guy ordering a hamburger. I'd probably pity him, but I'd do my best not to show it. And nowhere have I said that mocking fat people is a good way to encourage them to lose weight.
And yeah, I wouldn't be in the McDonald's in the first place. *shrug*
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:
quote:As if the scoffing remarks that people make toward fat people are really "for their own good." I don't buy it for a second.
Speaking as a fat person, I know I'm always deeply grateful to people who regard me with disgust. I find that self-loathing is extremely helpful to my diet regimen.
To be fair, I don't think anyone is actually claiming the point which is in the original quote. Unless I missed it, of course.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
I don't have to imagine it, I remember it. And it's not a very compelling argument.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'd probably pity him, but I'd do my best not to show it.
One of the greatest things about being fat is how quickly you discover how BAD people are at lying.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I'm pretty sure no hatracker has said it's okay to scoff at people who are overweight. For one thing, you assume that people who are thin today have always been thin and it isn't the case. My perspective about overweight people didn't change when I lost fifty pounds and was thin, I remembered what it was like to be heavy and I never have told someone, even a family member, what they should or shoudln't be eating or scoffed at them for "their own good" I certainly would never do it to a stranger.
The article wasn't just saying "Hey, you shouldn't make fun of fat people" most civilized people wouldn't do that no more than they would make fun of someone in a wheelchair. The article was asking if fat is the new race and if it should be. That is the claim that I'm focusing on and directing my remarks toward.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: Lisa, so you think it's okay to discriminate against someone and not hire them for a job because they're gross looking?
I think that hiring someone is like buying anything. No one has the right to tell me that I should buy Frosted Flakes instead of Rice Krispies, and no one has the right to tell me that I should hire person A rather than person B. And I should not -- ever -- have to justify my decisions of what I spend my money on to anyone.
If someone doesn't hire someone else because they're black, or Jewish, or Mormon, or gay, or ugly, or short, or fat, then maybe they're being jerks. Let's even say that they're being jerks in all cases, for the sake of argument. I still don't get how that's anyone's business. Jobs aren't some kind of natural resource that belong to everyone. It's a purchase of labor for money, no different than a purchase of breakfast cereal or a car.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
The article said:
quote:The seemingly well-established connection between fat and disease has meant - so far - that it has been somehow acceptable to criticise the fat; it's for their own good, after all.
THT said:
quote:Why would you want to remove the stigma? Is obesity good for you? Is it a desirable option in life? Would you like your children to be obese?
In addition, the whole debate on whether or not it is healthy to be fat smacks of the same underlying premise--that it is okay to scoff because it is for their own good. Since the article itself is about that issue, and those of you who are dissenting seem to be taking issue with the article, I think it's a fair assessment that people who advocate for a social stigma for health reasons seem to be advocating for scoffing for their own good. What else would a social stigma entail, anyway?
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
To be honest, the article very much strikes me as one of those "The Sky isn't Blue, it's Turquoise!!" self-congratulatory pieces. This is an interesting and important topic to discuss, for sure, but I don't think this particular article adds much to the conversation, no more than anyone else's personal anecdotes can.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Last week, a morbidly obese man that I work with just got a fairly big promotion over several other similarly qualified people. Therefore I conclude that there is no discrimination against fat people. Anyone that says otherwise is cherry-picking their data and practicing junk science.
The 'facts' in that article were a joke. To echo Lisa, where does personal responsibility start? We seem to be working so hard as a society to make sure that no one feels that anything they do is their fault. The facts are, as proven my scientists time and again, that obesity is completely preventable and curable, unlike race, gender, etc.
I don't think we should try to regulate everything. If someone is unwilling to hire or promote a perfectly qualified individual because they are obese, then they made a stupid, shortsighted decision that will cost them everyday. I saw a statistic that married people get more raises, promotions, and bonuses at work than single people. We should probably add them to the list. As a healthy, married, straight, Caucasian, age 26-40, Christian, middle class, college educated male I guess I'm part of the repressive majority and elite. Unless I can get equal opportunity for being a photic sneezer I guess.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:
quote:I'd probably pity him, but I'd do my best not to show it.
One of the greatest things about being fat is how quickly you discover how BAD people are at lying.
I'd say one of the great things about being Tom is that if anyone feels the need to pity him (for whatever reason), seeing him with Christy and Sophie will quickly remove any such compulsion. Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: I really think whether or not there are health issues associated with being fat is not the issue. (Although, I happen to think that sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't.)
The article is really talking about treating fat people like human beings, and not defining them by their size. If you think that it serves some greater purpose by ostracizing them and being cruel to "help" them to lose weight, then there really is no talking to you (general "you"). We disagree on a fundamental level.
I think the article is going far beyond that. I have no truck with people who think they're doing others good by maltreating them. But that's not all the article was saying. It was basically maknig a case for obesity to be treated as a normal variation among people that should have a protected status. I reject that.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You'd be amazed how many people don't get to see me with my wife and child on a regular basis.
Seriously, I have to admit that one of MY biggest motivations to lose weight -- leaving aside any health concerns -- is the impact it has on my professional career. People who are not obese and have never been obese cannot even IMAGINE how important weight is to professional advancement.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
quote:One of the greatest things about being fat is how quickly you discover how BAD people are at lying.
Hey, I said I do my best, not that I'm great at it.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I didn't really see the article as making the case that fat should be the new race more than exploring the issue. The author even ends with her opinion that fat isn't the new race (although she says it might be in the future). That's why I quoted the end of the article. That summed it up nicely for me, and is why I see it as an issue with treating people correctly.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
*shrug* I dont' really care where the article ended up, what I wanted to talk about was the race/weight issue and the great thing about hatrack is the ability to take discussions in new directions. I find discussing the issues of weight becoming a protected status much more intriguing, because it's an issue that can be discussed, with pros and cons on boths sides. Saying "You should treat fat people with dignity and respect" isn't going to garner much discussion, because most of us would agree with that statement.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I would venture that the social stigma does nothing for MOST fat people out there, but make them more depressed and eat more.
I'd agree with this. Depression is a major problem in our society. However, catering to people's feelings about the things they get depressed about, while sounding appealing, especially to people who are depressed about some aspect of themselves, doesn't fix this problem. In many studied cases, it makes it worse.
I'm not adovcating heaping scorn on people either, because that is generally even less effective. I wouldn't mind a stronger idea of "quit ya bitchin'" out there though
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I came into work expecting to have to respond to this thread. But I don't have to; I can simply agree with everything Katarain and Tom said.
Oh, and while we're clarifying what people have NOT said, I don't think anyone on Hatrack said that being fat should be a legally protected status. Simply that the vilification is not useful or appropriate.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I guess I see it like this...
Once upon a time, people hated each other for the color of their skin. Then someone told them, No, you can't do that. People have no control over their race, and besides, we're all the same no matter what color we are. There is no difference! So the people thought, well, we'll hate people based on their sexual orientation. They can control that! Then that someone came back and said, No, you can't do that. People who are gay are the same as everyone else, and besides, they didn't choose it--and so what if they did? So the people thought, well, who is it okay to hate? We know! Fat people! They're different than us, they look gross, and they CAN control it!
Simplistic? Maybe. But that's how I see it. It's just another avenue for hate. And I'm just waiting for that someone to come along and say, No, it's not okay to hate them. Help them, if you can, but don't hate. Treat them the same as anyone else.
Oh, and the people hate smokers, too. I don't like that either. Call me hippie if you will, but come on, people... love one another.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote:Oh, and while we're clarifying what people have NOT said, I don't think anyone on Hatrack said that being fat should be a legally protected status. Simply that the vilification is not useful or appropriate.
I definitely agree with this. It sums up nicely what takes me pages to express, and even adds in some more.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: *shrug* I dont' really care where the article ended up, what I wanted to talk about was the race/weight issue and the great thing about hatrack is the ability to take discussions in new directions. I find discussing the issues of weight becoming a protected status much more intriguing, because it's an issue that can be discussed, with pros and cons on boths sides. Saying "You should treat fat people with dignity and respect" isn't going to garner much discussion, because most of us would agree with that statement.
Amen.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
I don't hate fat people, and I certainly don't persecute or discriminate against fat people. I will not, however, at any point, be teaching my children that it's "okay" to be fat.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I certainly don't persecute or discriminate against fat people. I will not, however, at any point, be teaching my children that it's "okay" to be fat.
If you teach your kids it's not okay to be fat, you discriminate against fat people.
You believe, however, that it is right to do so.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
That's not true, Tom. Fat people don't have a right to be thought of in any given way. They only have a right to be treated in a certain way.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
Okay, let's get a big show of hands here from everyone who hates fat people!
Come on now, don't be shy!
*crickets*
Yeah, I didn't think so.
When you say "treat them the same as anyone else", to what exactly are you referring? Has it become commonplace in American society for people to verbally harass strangers for eating hamburgers? For adults to laugh out loud at someone who needs two seats on an airplane?
If it's common now for such things to happen in our society, then yes, I agree that people need a smack upside the head and some training in being polite. But if what you're complaining about is what people are THINKING about fat people, then I disagree. When I see someone who weighs 400 pounds walk into a McDonald's, I feel bad for them. Maybe I even frown. But I don't hate them, and I certainly don't go out of my way to make them feel bad.
And, here's the thing.... as time goes by, I'm starting to not even NOTICE the 400 pound guy walking into McDonalds. Because he's not really unusual anymore, is he. Maybe he would have been an oddity when I was a kid, but nowadays I see morbidly obese people every day.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
I expect my children to judge people based on their merits, not their appearances. I also expect my children to take care of their bodies and to make responsible decisions. Now, being young children, it falls to me to teach them healthy habits and behaviour.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
If I'm sitting on a train and someone who can't fit into a single seat sits down next to me and squooshes me, I resent that person. I resent the fact that it's not socially acceptable for me to say, "Will you get the hell off of me". And yes, I think poorly of such a person, and would probably be hostile to them. And it's happened too many times for me to feel very tolerant about it.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
While we're on the subject of seat size, I wish that amusement parks had a display outside of their rides that said "Your butt must be this narrow to ride this ride." Then everyone could see if their rear fit the display. It sure would save embarrassment after standing in line for a few hours.
I'm just sayin... There's a huge difference in how big the seats are. It varies from ride to ride. It sure would help to know before waiting in line.
ETA: Come to think of it, this would be very useful in airports and train stations, too.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
I'm just waiting for the first lawsuit claiming that narrow seats are an infringement of someone's rights.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
I HATE flying in anything other than business/first class because I have increasingly found myself in a situation where the "spillage" from another person turns my flight into an extremely uncomfortable trip. I shouldn't be made to suffer because of someone else's weight problems, just as I wouldn't expect the person in front of me to be crushed forward because I'm tall.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:No, it's not okay to hate them. Help them, if you can, but don't hate. Treat them the same as anyone else.
I don't hate fat people, but neither am I going to treat them like anyone else. Because they are different.
I find them unpleasant to look at. As someone who plays sports 4 or 5 days out of a week, I am less likely to be interested in developing a friendship with them. While this is by no means a set thing, I have found that the fat people I know tend to be lazier, mentally and physically, and less up for going out and doing things. Also, I don't like listening to people tell me how hard it is to watch what they eat and exercise for 30 minutes a day, 5 days a week.
This is not to say that I shun fat people, nor do I heap scorn on them. But I see being fat, in many cases, as less attractive in itself and often indicative of underlying things that I also find less attractive. It's much the same as with smokers. I don't date and am less likely to develop friendships with either. If I were looking to hire someone for a job and two candidates had equal credentials, I'd give the job to the person who wasn't fat or didn't smoke.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I believe that overweight people should be treated with respect and dignity. I believe that in circumstances where their weight does not affect their job performance, that they should not be discriminated against.
However,
1) I think someone in the process of becoming obese should see this as a bad thing. Perhaps a very bad thing.
2) If someone is already obese, I would hope that a person sees losing weight as an important goal.
Perhaps I am wrong in thinking 1 and 2, and feel free to attempt to persuade me otherwise. The reasons I believe 1 and 2 are largely based on the health problems associated with being obese. Attempting to lamely downplay these health problems like the article did is doing nothing good for the discussion.
So how do we as a society preserve both 1 and 2 if we pretend that being obese is A-Okay?
I don't want my children to be obese. I plan on teaching them the importance of avoiding sugary drinks. The importance of eating lots of fruit. The importance of not overeating. Of not eating in order to relieve emotional stress. To exercise on a regular basis.
Why? In large part to maintain a weight which is healthy. (Admittedly, partly to maintain an attractive appearance. You can try and tell me that last one is unimportant, but we'd just have to agree to disagree there.)
How could I not encourage them to maintain a healthy weight unless if I also tell them there is nothing wrong with being overweight? Wouldn't those two values be in contradiction?
I'd teach them to treat overweight people the same, but never to think of the condition as being one which is just fine for them to be in.
Edit:
Someone liked my analogy, so I figured I would put it back:
quote: I'd compare my feelings on obesity to what my feelings would be about people who smoke cigarettes, taking second hand smoke out of the equation. Though to make the analogy more apt, I'd add in the fact that most people who smoked these smokeless cigarettes have been given them by their parents since they were very young, and that they were extremely addicted to them long before they had the personal responsiblity to choose to smoke them. To strain my analogy even more (perhaps to the point of breaking it), I would add in the fact that a small percentage of these smokers could not help the fact that they smoke, because of some genetic or medical condition.
I wouldn't treat these people any differently, but I would still never say that smoking is "okay". I certainly would not teach my children that smoking was okay either.
[ July 10, 2006, 12:29 PM: Message edited by: Xavier ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:'I know ... that when a thin person looks at a fat person, the thin person considers the fat person less virtuous than he,' writes Judith Moore in her memoir, Fat Girl.
I'm skinny and I don't do this. I'm not skinny because of some sort of "virtue," I'm skinny because I can't gain significant amounts of weight regardless of my diet or exercise regimen. Even when I make small gains, I can't maintain them, and if I'm not careful about my diet and exercise it's easy for me to lose weight that I can't afford to lose. Because I know how hard it is for me to gain weight -- and at 6'3" and 150 lbs, you can bet your bottom dollar that I want to add some muscle mass -- I have empathy for the reverse situation. My weight has been down in the low 140s before, and it took conscious diet changes to bring it back up. When I see a large person eating a large and/or unhealthy meal, I don't think much of anything, other than maybe that the meal looks tasty if that happens to be the case (or the reverse, if it looks doubleplusuntasty).
Going by the article's premise, then: since there's one counterexample, obese people are clearly never discriminated against. That's obviously untrue, but given the quote above I can't help wondering how stray glances that I might throw at obese people are generally interpreted. I mean, should I just never look at them, if disdain is going to be perceived where none is intended? But wouldn't "looking the other way" be perceived in the same manner? Having read this thread, I'm starting to wonder how I, as a skinny person, should be acting to avoid giving offence -- and to what extent any changes would make a difference.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Katarian -- I've actually seen several amusement park rides that have a "test seat" outside the queue, so you can make sure you fit before you wait in line. The first one I saw I believe it was because of the restraints that came down over your head, that they had been having problems with them not being able to come down far enough to click in and secure some people. But they're becoming more common.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Xavier, I liked your analogy. And I can agree with what you said.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
It is worth noting that in the last 20-30 years, airplane seats have not only lost significant legroom, but have also become narrower (as the airlines squeeze more seats into each row). Aisles have become narrower as well.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Rivka, That only makes it more frustrating to be squished between two large people.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
I'll be brutally honest, even if it's not very complimentary of myself. Although I don't hate obese people, I do find myself digusted at an almost subliminal level. I've come up with justifications for these feelings, but it's really all they are.
If I were single, there would be zero chance of me dating an obese person. I'll probably be called shallow, but physical appearance is extremely important to me. Not just weight, but grooming and hygene. How someone presents themself tells me a lot about them.
However, that being said, I can't really say that I treat them derision. I don't roll my eyes at the 400 lb woman at Walmart with a cart full of chips and soda. I don't look pointedly at the large man consuming the double cheeseburgers, large fries, and 44 oz drink. So I can't say I don't discriminate because I do. However, I do also treat everyone politely.
Edit: Squicky said it much better than me. I've gotta be quicker at giving words to my thoughts.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
ElJay, that's really cool. The Great American Scream Machine at the Six Flags in Georgia is a pretty old ride, and has plastic dividers in between the two seats in a car. The seats are pretty narrow--I think because it's an older ride. The last time I rode on it, I had to force myself into the seat, and it was embarrassing, because if I had known, I would have just skipped the ride (I think I was a size 16 or 18 at the time). I didn't have the courage to get up and leave anyway. A test seat would have been great.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Oh, and while we're clarifying what people have NOT said, I don't think anyone on Hatrack said that being fat should be a legally protected status. Simply that the vilification is not useful or appropriate.
This statement most closely echoes my own sentiments on the matter, except that I find generalized vilification to not be useful or appropriate. There are too many causes for obesity, with varying degrees of personal responsibility. In general, though, I'm much more comfortable with vilifying fat people who got there because they're weak minded or have simply chosen to ignore the requirements of health. Then again, I have no problems vilifying skinny weak minded people, either.
I hope we never see legislation regarding equal opportunity for fat people. We already have way too many equal opportunity employment laws as it is.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
I too am in the very skinny naturally crowd, who can't gain weight. Oh well.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: I'll be brutally honest, even if it's not very complimentary of myself. Although I don't hate obese people, I do find myself digusted at an almost subliminal level. I've come up with justifications for these feelings, but it's really all they are.
If I were single, there would be zero chance of me dating an obese person. I'll probably be called shallow, but physical appearance is extremely important to me. Not just weight, but grooming and hygene. How someone presents themself tells me a lot about them.
However, that being said, I can't really say that I treat them derision. I don't roll my eyes at the 400 lb woman at Walmart with a cart full of chips and soda. I don't look pointedly at the large man consuming the double cheeseburgers, large fries, and 44 oz drink. So I can't say I don't discriminate because I do. However, I do also treat everyone politely.
You're not alone.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
One thing I want to add on to what I said above is that obesity (or smoking) is one aspect of a person. Even if I regard it as a negative aspect, I don't treat people as if that is their only aspect. And I do see that obese people get treated that way a lot, which I consider wrong.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I have to wonder, though... There are people who say that they can't lose weight, and that they're naturally fat (I'm not one of them). People don't believe them, and say it's a matter of diet and exercise. If that's true, maybe the reverse is true, that you're not really naturally skinny, you can gain weight with proper diet and exercise. (Whatever "proper" is in that case.)
I don't know that that's true... it's probably not. But why are we so quick to believe a thin person who says they can't gain weight, rather than a fat person who says they can't lose it? Those opinions are based on their own personal experience--what makes one more valid than the other? We can think that the fat person has simply not tried the right things or been diligent enough--but why don't we think that about the thin person?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: I have to wonder, though... There are people who say that they can't lose weight, and that they're naturally fat (I'm not one of them). People don't believe them, and say it's a matter of diet and exercise. If that's true, maybe the reverse is true, that you're not really naturally skinny, you can gain weight with proper diet and exercise. (Whatever "proper" is in that case.)
I don't know that that's true... it's probably not. But why are we so quick to believe a thin person who says they can't gain weight, rather than a fat person who says they can't lose it? Those opinions are based on their own personal experience--what makes one more valid than the other? We can think that the fat person has simply not tried the right things or been diligent enough--but why don't we think that about the thin person?
I wasn't aware that there was a different stigma for thin people who can't gain weight; I'm equally disinclined to believe them. Do people commonly believe people who claim they can't gain weight more than people who claim they can't lose it?
Posted by Ereneth (Member # 9532) on :
I used to be 30 pounds overweight, and fooled myself for a while, saying it was okay. But, living in Colorado (second thinnest state in the USA) in a town full of rabid athletes, that didn't last long. No one was mean about it or anything, I was just able to tell I was fat. Instread of pushing for my rights, I just began pushing away the plate while there was still food on it, and pushing myself out the door to walk 5 miles, and to work out. I'm right in the middle of a growth spurt right now, so I can't read my loss accurately on the scale (because of the addition of lean and bone mass), but I can tell a difference in how I look and feel.
So my advise to the Obese and Overweight, lose the extra, not to conform to 'skinny america', but to feel better. It may take years for some, but think about it, those years will pass anyway.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I had a personal trainer who had been the "naturally skinny" type, and devised a diet and weight lifting program that allowed him to pack on muscle. He was still slim, but no longer skeleton-like. (I saw the before pictures.)
That said, I've met and ate with twinky. He eats at least 3 times as much as I do. I'm 20 - 30 pounds overweight, eat relatively well and get a decent amount of exercise. So while I have no doubt he could gain weight, with effort and training, I wouldn't want to foot the food bill for the massive amounts of calories he'd need to consume.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: I wasn't aware that there was a different stigma for thin people who can't gain weight; I'm equally disinclined to believe them. Do people commonly believe people who claim they can't gain weight more than people who claim they can't lose it?
I thought there was. Maybe I'm wrong.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
True Squicky. However, it's not really an isolated aspect. For example smoking and obesity seem to be the results of other attributes of a person that I find less than desirable.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Regardless of where we all fall in the fat/skinny world, most of us are there because of the choices we made and the choices we continue to make. Case in point, I'm off to the gym in about 15 minutes. I have 30 minutes to run 5 miles, and somedays I hate doing it, but I'm making the choice to be healthy. No one else can take the responsibility away from me.
Posted by Ereneth (Member # 9532) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: I had a personal trainer who had been the "naturally skinny" type, and devised a diet and weight lifting program that allowed him to pack on muscle. He was still slim, but no longer skeleton-like. (I saw the before pictures.)
That said, I've met and ate with twinky. He eats at least 3 times as much as I do. I'm 20 - 30 pounds overweight, eat relatively well and get a decent amount of exercise. So while I have no doubt he could gain weight, with effort and training, I wouldn't want to foot the food bill for the massive amounts of calories he'd need to consume.
Yeah, I agree with that, while the naturaly skeletal may seem enviable at first, if you think about it, it's not that great. They're raginf furnace of a metabolism eats muscle, too. So while people like me may have to worl to lose some baggage, at least I know the muscle I build, will stay, at least for a while.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I have to wonder, though... There are people who say that they can't lose weight, and that they're naturally fat (I'm not one of them). People don't believe them, and say it's a matter of diet and exercise. If that's true, maybe the reverse is true, that you're not really naturally skinny, you can gain weight with proper diet and exercise. (Whatever "proper" is in that case.)
I don't know that that's true... it's probably not. But why are we so quick to believe a thin person who says they can't gain weight, rather than a fat person who says they can't lose it? Those opinions are based on their own personal experience--what makes one more valid than the other? We can think that the fat person has simply not tried the right things or been diligent enough--but why don't we think that about the thin person?
Because that's something that a lot of fat people say. And most of those people eat a whole lot of food and don't exercise. I think fat people are held to a higher standard of truth regarding the futility of their efforts to lose weight than skinny people on trying to gain weight.
No doubt part of it is that being skinny is more socially acceptable than being fat. I think part of it is also hearing the "I'm just genetically fat" from people who eat McDonalds and watch 6 hours of TV a day a lot more than "I'm just genetically skinny" from people who have never set foot in a gym.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: I had a personal trainer who had been the "naturally skinny" type, and devised a diet and weight lifting program that allowed him to pack on muscle. He was still slim, but no longer skeleton-like. (I saw the before pictures.)
That said, I've met and ate with twinky. He eats at least 3 times as much as I do. I'm 20 - 30 pounds overweight, eat relatively well and get a decent amount of exercise. So while I have no doubt he could gain weight, with effort and training, I wouldn't want to foot the food bill for the massive amounts of calories he'd need to consume.
That's kind of an important point. Thin people trying to gain weight may actually be limited by the amount of money they have to spend on food.
Then again, I'm sure there are some fat/unhealthy people that got that way because they work two jobs that don't pay them well and can't seem to advance, because they're also raising three kids and literally do NOT have the time to cook every day, so fast food becomes the cheapest, most attractive option.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
ETA: To Ereneth.
Oh, hey, I'm not saying it's not that great. I love to eat, I'd trade metabolisms in a heartbeat. I'm just saying that I don't question that it's difficult for some people to gain weight. I don't believe it's impossible, but I believe it takes just as much effort and discipline as it does for overweight people to lose weight.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
One of the interesting things I've picked up from a friend of mine who sort of works in this area is that, for low income families, food is one of the most common treats. They're going to spend money on food anyway, so if you want to treat yourself (or your kids), a trip to a fast food restaurant makes more econmoic sense than say going to the movies or some other luxury.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
quote:I have to wonder, though... There are people who say that they can't lose weight, and that they're naturally fat (I'm not one of them). People don't believe them, and say it's a matter of diet and exercise. If that's true, maybe the reverse is true, that you're not really naturally skinny, you can gain weight with proper diet and exercise. (Whatever "proper" is in that case.)
I think a lot of people don't realize how slowly most people lose weight. Half a pound to a pound a week for someone who is doing everything they've been told to do lies entirely in the normal rate for weight loss. People setting unrealistic goals and then losing hope and/or declaring that they just can't shed the weight happens an awful lot, I'd imagine.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Chocolate really IS the best flavor of slim-fast. I'm sipping on the vanilla variety right now. Ick. It's not as icky as the Strawberry, though. That stuff is VILE.
I'm sipping down this awful stuff. So nobody better give me grief for being overweight today.
Not that they ever do. But I have limited contact with strangers, who are unpredictable.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
I was just wondering, concerning those of you who feel that it is all right to discriminate against fat people because they "have a choice"...do you also think it is all right to discriminate against people based on the religion they choose to follow? Because religion is a choice, you know. People choose to go from not being religious to being religious all the time, or they go from being religious to not being religious, or they change the denomination or the religion that they choose to follow. It isn't genetically determined, like, say race or gender.
Just wondering, you know. And waiting for the chorus of, "Oh, but that's different..."
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think that people who are overweight are spending their time elsewhere than a gym. That elsewhere could be raising four kids and working full-time, being a student and working, commuting three hours a day, or watching five hours of television a day. I don't know, but I know the people I have known who were overweight and concientious about it usually also had great demands on their time that precluded devoting an hour+ a day to exercise. Less than that is good for health, but doesn't lead to dramatic weight loss.
Keeping fit takes a great deal of work, work that is often expensive and boring. It's still worth it, but I can' completely understand when it's hard to get to. When I see someone who is gorgeously fit, I automatically assume that they have plenty of discretionary income (produce and gyms can get very expensive) and time (fixing food and working out take time). That's great for them, and I wish everyone could have those, and we'd all be better off if that time and money were spent that way. I do not, however, assume virtue. I don't think it has anything to do with how decent of a human being they are.
Posted by Ereneth (Member # 9532) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: ETA: To Ereneth.
Oh, hey, I'm not saying it's not that great. I love to eat, I'd trade metabolisms in a heartbeat. I'm just saying that I don't question that it's difficult for some people to gain weight. I don't believe it's impossible, but I believe it takes just as much effort and discipline as it does for overweight people to lose weight.
Exactly, I have 2 friends like that, and all I ever hear out of them is: "Oh no, I'm all scrawny, aah! It's horrible." You start to believe them after a while.
But then again, I have a build that puts fat on pretty fast, but puts on muscle even faster, so it's a matter of doing less of one thing and more of another.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Who's said that it's all right to discriminate against fat people?
If you're talking about what I've said, I've got no problem with seeing people's religion as a positive or negative aspect of who they are, in a similar way to obesity or smoking.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by littlemissattitude: I was just wondering, concerning those of you who feel that it is all right to discriminate against fat people because they "have a choice"...do you also think it is all right to discriminate against people based on the religion they choose to follow? Because religion is a choice, you know. People choose to go from not being religious to being religious all the time, or they go from being religious to not being religious, or they change the denomination or the religion that they choose to follow. It isn't genetically determined, like, say race or gender.
Just wondering, you know. And waiting for the chorus of, "Oh, but that's different..."
I discriminate based on religion, race, appearance, gender, and whatever I darn well please. I think anyone who claims not to is either in denial or a flat out liar.
Edit to add: or has a definition of "discrimination" that I don't agree with.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
I should say that I don't mean that everyone who says they can't lose the weight/put on the weight is lying. There are going to be outliers in the healthy weight range. But I don't think there are as many outliers as people on either side of the spectrum would have us believe. The only way to really know is to make the lifestyle change and keep at it for several months (it can take a while for your metabolism to change). I don't think most people who say they're outliers have actually done this.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
That's why I used the "significant" qualifier. I've been up to 155 or so when I exercised more and boosted my protein intake on one of my school terms back when I was in university. I also ate a lot more fat, so I imagine some of that gain was fatty in nature. I'm about 150 now because most of the exercise I do (by preference; swimming and tennis are a lot more fun than weights) is cardio.
Added: Also, I eat a lot less fat and very little red meat nowadays. I do get protein, but in some ways I'm still in the process of rebalancing my diet. Because of my (hereditary) cholesterol concerns, I try to eat healthily.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: I mean, should I just never look at them, if disdain is going to be perceived where none is intended? But wouldn't "looking the other way" be perceived in the same manner? Having read this thread, I'm starting to wonder how I, as a skinny person, should be acting to avoid giving offence -- and to what extent any changes would make a difference.
As I never once felt "disdain" in your presence, whatever you are doing to avoid giving the impression is probably just fine. Any disdain felt is unlikely to be caused by anything you do.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: I'm just waiting for the first lawsuit claiming that narrow seats are an infringement of someone's rights.
You don't have to wait at all, Lisa. It has already happened in the airline industry, where a man was told he had to pay for two seats because that is how many seats he needed.
Tom, I know you are overweight. So am I, although not to the same extent, and my wife is overweight as well. I plan on teaching our children to be more active and to try to maintain a lower weight, but not because I hate or discriminate against overweight people. I will do it because it is a healthier lifestyle and I want the best for my children.
There is nothing wrong with that. I will also teach them to judge the whole person rather than just their appearance.
Belle, I am with you as far as hiring others, to a point. If someone doesn't care enough to dress up for an important interview I believe that tells me more than just their taste in clothing, and that would affect my attitude toward hiring them.
I don't think that is wrong though.
How the dress, their personal appearance and grooming, and how they interview is far more important to me than their weight though, as long as they meet/exceed the job requirements.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: As I never once felt "disdain" in your presence, whatever you are doing to avoid giving the impression is probably just fine. Any disdain felt is unlikely to be caused by anything you do.
Since I'm not actively doing anything, that's good to know. Reading that quote concerned me a bit -- I'm glad it isn't true in the general case for people who are even slightly overweight.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by twinky: I mean, should I just never look at them, if disdain is going to be perceived where none is intended? But wouldn't "looking the other way" be perceived in the same manner? Having read this thread, I'm starting to wonder how I, as a skinny person, should be acting to avoid giving offence -- and to what extent any changes would make a difference.
As I never once felt "disdain" in your presence, whatever you are doing to avoid giving the impression is probably just fine.
Ditto. Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
Being fat has it's advantages (me = 5'8, 285)
1. I'm practically impervious to cold weather compared to thin people.
2. People LOVE hugging me. Nobody loves hugging bony, hard people.
3. Fat people are funnier. Period.
4. Anywhere else in the world, I'd be considered wealthy.
5. Nobody kidnaps fat people.
~LW
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Fat people don't have a right to be thought of in any given way.
I'm not saying that fat people have any rights at all. I'm saying that if you teach your kids that being fat is wrong, you are in fact -- almost by definition -- discriminating against fat people.
quote:Maybe he would have been an oddity when I was a kid, but nowadays I see morbidly obese people every day.
I think it's exactly this reality which is leading to articles like these. You don't see anyone calling for an end to ANY sort of discrimination in the media until a critical mass of subgroup members has been reached.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
I see it cropping up in this thread, so I just want to dispel this myth that the most important factor in successful weight loss is how much time you have to devote to exercise. I've used this excuse many times myself in the past, and see it come up over and over again in discussions about losing weight, and it's just flat-out not true. Yes, exercise is excellent for you and will significantly speed up your weight loss, but it is NOT the most important factor. You lose weight by limiting your calorie and fat intake, which is someone anyone, with any schedule, can do TODAY.
If you have the time and money to spend an hour a day in a fancy gym with a personal trainer, or even half an hour to spend pounding the pavement around your house, that's fantastic, and you'll see great results from it. But if your body is used to eating 4000 calories of fast food a day, and you suddenly spend a month eating 1500 calories of nutritious food a day, you'll lose weight even if the most exercise you get is getting up from the computer to use the bathroom every few hours.
Exercise is very important and very beneficial, but not having the time or money to do it every day is NOT an excuse for being extremely overweight.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Zeugma, that only works if you are going from 4000 to 1500 calories a day. If you're going from 2500 to 1600 a day (much more likely), then it won't do much of anything without exercise, and it definitely won't produce dramatic results.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Hehe LW, those are good.
However, I'd have to disagree with #4. I know in Latin America and in China being fat is a bad thing. However, it is ironic being fat historically often meant that you were weathly, and now in this country it's often a sign of being less economically advantaged, as someone mentioned above. I'd actually be interested in seeing some income brackets with associated obesity percentages.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
Oh now, I didn't say anything about dramatic results. I see these commercials that advertise losing 30 pounds in a month or something insane like that.... but losing more than 2 pounds a week is considered unrealistic and dangerous. I'd consider 8 pounds in a month a really awesome accomplishment from anyone, and that's not exactly dramatically fast. But like someone said earlier, the month is going to pass anyhow, and wouldn't you rather be 5-8 pounds lighter than the reverse?
And, actually, I think going from 2500 to 1600 calories a day would make a HUGE difference. Most women my age with my level of activity (almost none most days) burn 1900 calories a day just by existing. The difference between getting 600 more calories than I need and 300 less than I need would be the difference between gaining 4 pounds a month or losing 3 a month. And lemme tell you, losing 3 pounds a month for 6 months would make me look gooooood.
If I were to add a decent exercise program to these numbers, I'd be adding about 300 or 400 burned calories a day, which is a significant amount, but not nearly as much as cutting out 900 calories from my food intake.
Of course, exercise has other benefits, like building muscle mass that increases the amount of calories you burn just by "existing", but when we're talking about the single biggest factor most people need to change to lose weight, limiting calorie intake is the winner, hands-down.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by littlemissattitude: I was just wondering, concerning those of you who feel that it is all right to discriminate against fat people because they "have a choice"...do you also think it is all right to discriminate against people based on the religion they choose to follow?
I don't think it's okay, but I don't think it's something that should be an issue of law, other than simple contract law. In other words, if someone hires me without saying they have a problem with my religion, I don't expect the terms of my employment to change in that regard. But if they don't want to hire me because I'm Jewish, that's their right. It's also my right to try and create a boycott against them, if I choose to do so, but that's all an issue of voluntary behavior. It's when you get the government involved that I think it's gone too far.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: Being fat has it's advantages (me = 5'8, 285)
1. I'm practically impervious to cold weather compared to thin people.
There is something to be said for that. I was sitting across from my little sister at my parents' house a few weeks ago, and they had the air conditioning up fairly high. My sister is a toothpick, and she was shivering. I said something like, "You should try being fat." I didn't realize until after I'd said it how silly it sounded, but it did get a laugh.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Fat people don't have a right to be thought of in any given way.
I'm not saying that fat people have any rights at all. I'm saying that if you teach your kids that being fat is wrong, you are in fact -- almost by definition -- discriminating against fat people.
I guess I'm not sure what you mean by "discriminating". Or by "wrong", for that matter. I teach Tova that being fat is undesirable. But barring any actions taken against someone who is fat, I can't see how that constitutes discrimination in any practical sense.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
And, since I've spent most of this thread making overweight people feel crappy about themselves, I just want to post this again:
This is the site I've been using since January to keep me on track with my calories and keep me motivated. It follows the same basic idea as Weight Watchers, which is a) keep track of how much you're eating, b) eat fewer calories, and c) try to exercise when you can. Except, unlike WW, it's free!
It's very reasonable, very achievable, and there's a great community for support and information. It's not a miracle diet, and it doesn't have any quick-fix easy answers, but if you're tired of being fat and don't know what to do about it, check this out.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Zeugma, that only works if you are going from 4000 to 1500 calories a day. If you're going from 2500 to 1600 a day (much more likely), then it won't do much of anything without exercise, and it definitely won't produce dramatic results.
Amen. I don't have a huge calorie intake, and I can have a yogurt for breakfast, a can of tuna with lemon juice on it for lunch and another yogurt for dinner, and still not lose weight. If I don't go to the gym, I won't lose weight, period. Cutting down on food to any significant degree from what I eat now just makes me weak and tired.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
Well, if you've managed to go a month eating only yogurt, tuna, and yogurt again every single day, and still not lost a single pound, then a) you have incredible willpower, because that sounds awful and b) your body needs to have a chat with our friend Mr. Physics. Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
True kat, but i would venture a guess that most overweight people are closer to 4000 than 2000. I'd find it very hard to believe that someone could remain obese if they were living on a diet of 2000 calories composed of only complex carbs, protein, and healthy fats, even without exercise.
Of course, the healthier way to lose would be to ramp down from 4000 by increments of 500 over many months until you hit 2000. Cutting calories in half suddenly could slow the metabolism as the body enters 'starvation mode.'
The hardest part about body transformations (putting on muscle or losing fat) is patience. 1 pound of fat a week is actually pretty good, and will result in 50 lbs a year. But in a world of 'lose 30 lbs in 9 days' advertisements, this process can seem slow and excruciating I'm sure.
I know with my muscle gains it's been like that. I eat about 3500-4000 calories a day, spread over 6 meals. I'm sure people out there think that's sounds wonderful 'to eat whatever you want,' but honestly it's not the case. It's gross to eat that much, and it's all low calorie/high quality food like chicken breasts, ww bread, eggs, etc. To put it in perspective, 4000 calories about like 15 chicken breasts, 10 slices of bread, and 14 eggs. I work out at the gym for an hour to an hour and a half a day, mostly weights but enough cardio to keep me from getting to pudgy. All that just to gain on average about 1.5 lbs a week in muscle.
Losing weight for an endomorph (someone more genetically inclined to hold their weight) would be much the same battle, except less on the weights and tons more cardio. Instead of eating until they feel like they're going burst it would be being a bit more hungry. The point is it's not easy or quick. It's a lifestyle.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
If you go to McDonald's and order a Big Mac, large fries, and large (regular) Coke, you're eating more than 1500 calories in that single meal. Add a dessert or super-size it and you're well over 2000 calories. In one meal!
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
AND, since most of that "meal" was nutritionally non-existant, not to mention carried THREE addictive substances, your body is going to be crying for food again (most likely fast food) in a matter of hours.
Honestly, when I think about obesity in America, I'm filled with seething hatred.... directed not at the people, but at the fast-food megacorporations and the billions of dollars they spend blasting us with marketing convincing us that this is a normal way to eat.
Posted by Chanie (Member # 9544) on :
Up until this summer, I would have told you that I was one of those people who could not gain or lose weight. For the past 10 years or so, I've been the same weight give or take about about 3 points. Doesn't matter what I eat (too much or too little), how much I exercised, etc. Always about 15-20 pounds overweight.
Then I moved to the midwest to do a summer internship. There are no kosher restaurants here. No kosher meat (other than hot dogs). No huge potlucks. Very little cheese. Needless to say, a radical diet shift. And in two months, I lost 10 pounds without even knowing it.
I think for some people (like me), it may take so many changes in combination, that people try a few and get discouraged.
I was shocked that I had lost weight. I honestly thought that my metabolism just adjusted to the amount of food I ate, no matter what I did. When I called my sister and told her that I had lost 10 pounds (I didn't know until yesterday, I haven't had access to a scale), she said, "Well, Chanie, there's no halvah there..."
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
That meal is actually: 1150 calories. But that's still a lot.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Zeugma- Thanks, I meant to make that point about fast food calories but forgot. I appreciate that.
Honestly it makes me mad too. IMO fast food companies are the new tobacco companies of the 21st century.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
My mistake, I was thinking of a Big Mac, not a regular hamburger.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
But if you decide to have a Premium grilled chicken sandwich, and a caesar salad (no chicken), then it's only 510 calories for the meal. Yay! (If you skip the soda, which you should do anyway, if you're trying to lose weight--diet or no.)
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Zeugma: If you go to McDonald's and order a single hamburger, large fries, and large (regular) Coke, you're eating more than 1500 calories in that single meal. Add a dessert or super-size it and you're well over 2000 calories. In one meal!
You're either exagerating or using incorrect information; the McDonald's website (which is verifiably accurate) lists a hamburger, large fries and large Coke at 1,140 calories. Also, Large is the largest available size.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
Changing the hamburger to a Big Mac still doesn't make it over 1500 calories.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Makes it close. Also you're assuming no refil on the drink.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
Exactly Katarain! It's all about the choices you make. The biggest thing I had to get my head around when I really started getting serious about this was the realization that you don't have to deprive yourself or stop eating anything you enjoy, you just have to make better choices. If you can go to McDonalds and get only the plain chicken sandwich and plain caesar salad (some of their dressing can add over 150 calories), you can absolutely eat there and still lose weight.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Ah, I forgot about the dressing.
On my particular plan, I focus on limiting the carbs I eat, so if I ordered that sandwich, I'd have to throw some of the bread away. That's okay. And my plan is based on my insulin resistance, not the low-carb hype. It's what I learned makes it possible for me to actually lose weight. (Not that I'm allowed to eat other non-carb foods in unlimited amounts--only if I'm genuinely hungry.)
I also don't agree that junk food is cheaper. Good for you food is cheap, you just have to cook it. And if you manage your life correctly, most people could find time to cook it--even if that means getting a crock pot. (There are, of course, exceptions.. there are always exceptions.)
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Zeugma: AND, since most of that "meal" was nutritionally non-existant, not to mention carried THREE addictive substances, your body is going to be crying for food again (most likely fast food) in a matter of hours.
Honestly, when I think about obesity in America, I'm filled with seething hatred.... directed not at the people, but at the fast-food megacorporations and the billions of dollars they spend blasting us with marketing convincing us that this is a normal way to eat.
Why not expend that hatred at the stupid people who believe what they're told in advertisements without checking into it for themselves? If you're willing to take a TV ad at face value, you deserve the consequences.
McDonald's has done an amazing job of offering healthy alternatives and being extremely forthright about the nutrition information of their products. Granted, they probably wouldn't be if they didn't have to, but they're way the heck better about it than, say, Quizno's.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
Next time I'll get my numbers from the actual site instead of howstuffworks.com.
However, I also don't think a burger, large fries, and large Coke is at all an "outrageous" meal at McDonald's. How many people add a dessert or get something like a Double Quarter Pounder w/Cheese (730 calories) or.... holy frazola, this has to be a typo.... a 10 piece "premium chicken strips" for 1270 calories?? How big are those things? Or what about getting "creamy ranch sauce" on your sandwich for 200 calories?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Zeugma: Next time I'll get my numbers from the actual site instead of howstuffworks.com.
However, I also don't think a burger, large fries, and large Coke is at all an "outrageous" meal at McDonald's. How many people add a dessert or get something like a Double Quarter Pounder w/Cheese (730 calories) or.... holy frazola, this has to be a typo.... a 10 piece "premium chicken strips" for 1270 calories?? How big are those things? Or what about getting "creamy ranch sauce" on your sandwich for 200 calories?
I'm really confused: does anyone actually think there's such a thing as a healthy hamburger, or healthy french fries? These things are bad for you, period; the hamburgers served ANYWHERE are just as bad for you, if not worse. McDonald's isn't attempting to make it sound like eating a double quarter pounder is a healthy choice.
FYI: The standard serving size for the premium chicken strips is 3 pieces, which is equivilant to 10 chicken mcnuggets; the 10 piece is the family size.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I crave Taco Bell foods. They're so cheap, but oh so good. My hubby hates for me to get fast food, though, because of the quality. (Not because of my size.) So I haven't had any in moooooooooonths, maybe even a year by now.
Can we ban those advertisements? They're mocking me!
I'm kidding, but on a similar topic... you can get inspired from some of those advertisements. We've made 3 dishes at home inspired by fast food commercials. Since we don't trust the quality of food made by most teenagers (and you really don't know what sort of ones work there), this was a better solution. We've made the spicy chicken sandwich from Burger King with the spicy chicken, jalepenos, and pepper jack cheese. That was good. We've made the chicken sandwich advertised by McDonalds as only having pickles on it. That was good. We made the mashed potatoes/corn/chicken/gravy/cheese bowls from KFC. Those were good. Not particularly healthy, but healthier than the fast food version.
And we can alter things at will to match our particular dietary needs.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm actually intrigued by another question: IS there a stigma against the excessively thin? I know there's some jealousy, and I know people who are assumed to be bulimic are of course the subject of tongue-wagging, but I don't otherwise see it.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I'm pretty darn thin, and I've never been stigmatized for it. I get the usual "I hate you" comments from people who are jealous, and I wish I could gain some weight, but in my opinion that doesn't come close to stigmatization or discrimination.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:I think a lot of people don't realize how slowly most people lose weight. Half a pound to a pound a week for someone who is doing everything they've been told to do lies entirely in the normal rate for weight loss. People setting unrealistic goals and then losing hope and/or declaring that they just can't shed the weight happens an awful lot, I'd imagine.
This needed to be re-quoted. It's extremely important. Most people see all those ads about "lose weight quick" schemes and think they aren't doing anything if they only lost one pound a week. For a person 100 pounds overweight, they don't want to hear it will probably take two years or more to take off that weight properly. That is, with diet and exercise and losing about one pound per week. You also have to allow for plateaus, where you may go several weeks or even more than a month without losing anything, unless you make an additional change.
The good news is that adding in a fitness regimen can really help, because as you build muscle you will burn more calories and increasing your workout regimen will help you over those plateaus. But if you're doing it right, it's still going to take a long time. And that's discouraging when you look at it at first, until you realize that hey, those two years are going to pass whether you're losing weight or not. I was discouraged when I first looked into finishing my degree, but my husband encouraged me by saying hey, even if it takes five years because you're going part-time and you don't graduate until you're almost forty, at least you'll be almost forty with a degree instead of without one.
But it's hard. I've done it, I lost fifty pounds once but it took a year to do it. Then I got pregnant with twins and put it all back on. *sigh* And didn't lose it after the babies came, which is why I'm in this situation today. I don't begrudge it though, my doctor told me that studies show a direct correlation between early weight gain and total weight gain in mothers of multiples and the birth weight of the babies. My twins were born full term weight and healthy. Their health was worth me gaining the weight. But my health is also worth me losing it.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'm actually intrigued by another question: IS there a stigma against the excessively thin? I know there's some jealousy, and I know people who are assumed to be bulimic are of course the subject of tongue-wagging, but I don't otherwise see it.
Oh, there is. I'm not excessively thin, nor was I in middle/high school, but I was always pretty thin. And I also ate a lot of small meals. Since none of my peers ever saw me eat a lot in one sitting, they made fun of me for being anorexic. One of my friends once tried to have me committed for "anorexia athletica" because I liked to run a lot and, in her mind, was not eating.
-pH
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I can only speak for myself. I don't see myself as having any problems with the excessively thin--if they're anorexic, I'm likely to feel sympathetic for them. I don't see that there's a stigma, but maybe they feel differently, and would be more apt to judge whether there is one.
I'm not really jealous, though--not all the time, anyway. I think I'd rather be in the middle. I don't want to be skinny. And if I can't be in the middle, I'd rather be on the bigger side.
So I tell myself. Perhaps the reality is different, but I'm trying to be honest with myself and answer truthfully, and that's the answer I came up with. If it's false, I accept no responsibility for my strange psyche.
It could be that I simply have no experience being skinny, so choose what I know over what I don't.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: do you also think it is all right to discriminate against people based on the religion they choose to follow?
Well, yeah...
Kat, You wouldn't believe me if I told you what the demands on my time are, but I use most of my lunch break to do something healthy, and I think that most people could do the same.
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
I think the thing about excessively thin people has a lot to do with how natural it is for their body to be like that. You can usually tell by how healthy someone looks if they are just naturally thin, or are excessive with diet and exercise, or have an eating disorder. Also there are clues with how they treat their bodies and how comfortable they are in them.... a person who looks like a walking skeleton wearing clothes designed to show off fit, curvy bodies....ew. But someone really, really skinny who wears more "normal" or "appropriate" clothes won't bother me, except maybe jealousy that they look good
Edit: woah, when I started typing, Tom's was the last post!
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
If you're male Tom, I really think there is. Of course, I don't think it approaches the level of the obesity stigma, but I think it's real and there.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
I eat so very little compare to my wife. Actually I overeat and she over over over eats - probably 3 times what I eat. She does walk everywhere tho.
However, I eat fast food, diet coke, junk food as well as her cooking. She eats veggies, fruits, and only home made food. But still....she has to be packing twice the calories I eat a day. She is thin, I am fat (6ft and 235lbs).
First time I went to a buffet with her, I was sure she was bulimic. I waited for her to go to the restroom and throw up--she didn't. She did eat 5 pieces of cake after 4 huge plates of salad, fruit, veggies, and fish.
Anyway...
We went to Japan for a month. I walked at least an hour a day. I cut back my diet drink to almost none. Every morning we had fresh veggies-as in picked from their farm that morning. We also had tons of tofu.
All my meals were healthy and tasted so good. Lunches were small and dinners were home made. We went to an occasional meat buffet, but I ate less then anyone in her family.
After a month I still weigh 235!! I am (was) good looking and feel good about myself, but it is my diet coke gut I hate. It makes me uglier and out of breath. Plus it looks suspiciously like a gut that precedes diabetes.
I didn't loose a pound in Japan. I know what I have to do: eat right and exercise more, but the trip to Japan was a reality shocker to how hard it will be.
**At least I didn't gain weight!
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote: Good for you food is cheap, you just have to cook it.
No, it's really not. Fresh produce and whole grain bread are more expensive than boxed mac&cheese and white bread. Worth it, yes. But it's a real problem for people on severely limited budgets. And for people who depend on food banks and pantries it's almost impossible in many towns to get healthy food. You take what people donate.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote: Good for you food is cheap, you just have to cook it.
No, it's really not. Fresh produce and whole grain bread are more expensive than boxed mac&cheese and white bread. Worth it, yes. But it's a real problem for people on severely limited budgets. And for people who depend on food banks and pantries it's almost impossible in many towns to get healthy food. You take what people donate.
Considering how startlingly easy it is to get food stamps and how much money they give you, I have to disagree. I'm having trouble imagining a situation in which you cannot qualify for food stamps but cannot afford to buy healthy food at the grocery store.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Where can you still get food stamps? *blink* I didn't realize they still existed.
-------
It's worth noting, by the way, that healthy food is almost ALWAYS either more time-consuming or more expensive than unhealthy food.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Where can you still get food stamps? *blink* I didn't realize they still existed.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: It's worth noting, by the way, that healthy food is almost ALWAYS either more time-consuming or more expensive than unhealthy food.
Low quality is almost always cheaper than high quality.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
It's not easy to get food stamps.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote: Low quality is almost always cheaper than high quality.
That would be the point. Eating healthy costs more.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Zeugma: Well, if you've managed to go a month eating only yogurt, tuna, and yogurt again every single day, and still not lost a single pound, then a) you have incredible willpower, because that sounds awful and b) your body needs to have a chat with our friend Mr. Physics.
I'm awfully sedentary.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: It's not easy to get food stamps.
Where do you live? I've admittedly got only anecdotal evidence to go on, but I've got a lot of it: over 50 individual cases from four different states (Washington, Hawaii, New York and Ohio).
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Over 50? Why?
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Georgia.
I admit to being biased. I was denied at a time in my life when I desperately needed them, because of a stupid rule.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote: Low quality is almost always cheaper than high quality.
That would be the point. Eating healthy costs more.
My point is that while it costs more, it isn't expensive.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Over 50? Why?
A combination of a lot of Americorps volunteers, dishonest college students and friends with very low income families.
Edited to add an "s".
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: Georgia.
I admit to being biased. I was denied at a time in my life when I desperately needed them, because of a stupid rule.
What rule was it? If you don't mind my asking, that is. Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:I'm skinny and I don't do this. I'm not skinny because of some sort of "virtue," I'm skinny because I can't gain significant amounts of weight regardless of my diet or exercise regimen.
quote:That said, I've met and ate with twinky. He eats at least 3 times as much as I do. I'm 20 - 30 pounds overweight, eat relatively well and get a decent amount of exercise. So while I have no doubt he could gain weight, with effort and training, I wouldn't want to foot the food bill for the massive amounts of calories he'd need to consume.
Since it sounds like you've had your lipids checked, I probably don't even have to ask this, but how sure are you that you don't have a hyperactive thyroid?
I used to eat massive amounts of food and not gain a single pound. Turns out their was a reason for this!
I was 158 pounds, and while that doesn't sound that low, I was really pretty skinny (in body fat percentage). Especially considering the massive amounts of calories I consumed. Something in the range of 4,000-5,000 I would guess.
Of course, when they killed my thyroid, I gained thirty pounds in under 2 months, eventually up to 195lbs before it levelled off.
Jeez, that's 37 pounds. In about three months. Well, it was worth it, but still, yikes.
I've lost about 8 pounds of that over the last year, but I really should try to lose more.
I'm going to the gym tonight, but I did go to Old Chicago for lunch, so both good and bad today.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
For a household of four to be eligible for food stamps their gross monthly income must be under $2,097. They also may not have assets worth more than $2000, including bank accounts. If you own your home it does not count toward that $2000, but the value of your car(s) over $4650 does.
And if that family of four qualifies, they may receive up to $506 minus 30% of the net household income per month. (Net income is gross minus a standard deduction and some child care and medical expenses.)
I wouldn't want to try to support a family of four on those numbers.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
The rule was one that requires students to have a job of 20/hrs a week to be eligible. I was a graduate student, trying desperately to get a job--a FULL-TIME one. Since I didn't have a job, I was denied. No way to appeal. I had a mini-breakdown in the lady's office and walked out. It is not a happy memory. I couldn't even manage to drive home.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Generally, I think it's cheaper (with the exception of produce) to eat healthy, although definately more time consuming.
Take 4 kids out for 1 cheeseburger, 1 md fry, 1 coke: ~$4.00 each=$16.
or
Make 2 cups (dry rice) for $.30, Four grilled 4oz chicken breasts for $5, frozen vegetables $1.50, 8oz milk each $.60. Total cost: $7.40. Less than half the cost of the meal, and possible to cook in 30 minutes. 550 quality, filling, calories each.
If they're really working a minimum wage job where they're so poor they're struggling for food money, etc, wouldn't half an hour of their time which saves them 8 after tax dollars on just 1 meal be VERY worth it?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Feed 4 kids with either one or two boxes of store brand mac& cheese -- $2.00.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
When I originally said that eating healthy was cheaper, I meant as opposed to fast food. Fast food is NOT cheap. Bao's example is right on. That healthy food is much cheaper than fast food. And really, the price of the rice is comparable to the box of mac and cheese you can get.
And if you buy in bulk and freeze stuff, you can cut costs even more.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Make 2 cups (dry rice) for $.30, Four grilled 4oz chicken breasts for $5, frozen vegetables $1.50, 8oz milk each $.60. Total cost: $7.40. Less than half the cost of the meal, and possible to cook in 30 minutes. 550 quality, filling, calories each.
It's worth noting that frozen vegetables and dry rice are mainly starches (corn, lima beans, peas, rice, etc.) Those aren't quality calories, either. But I'm just nit-picking.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I disagree about the quality calories. Veggies are good. I don't care if they're starchy. And get brown rice.
ETA: At least they're getting some protein, and a more balanced meal than the boxed mac&cheese.
Although I'd use the mac&cheese sometimes if I were on a budget. I do now, in fact. I just add canned tomatoes, and have chicken, too.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: For a household of four to be eligible for food stamps their gross monthly income must be under $2,097. They also may not have assets worth more than $2000, including bank accounts. If you own your home it does not count toward that $2000, but the value of your car(s) over $4650 does.
And if that family of four qualifies, they may receive up to $506 minus 30% of the net household income per month. (Net income is gross minus a standard deduction and some child care and medical expenses.)
I wouldn't want to try to support a family of four on those numbers.
My father raised 8 of us kids on a policeman's salary of about $24,000 a year- no food stamps. My mother worked hard in the home to make what he provided enough and we were never hungry.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: For a household of four to be eligible for food stamps their gross monthly income must be under $2,097. They also may not have assets worth more than $2000, including bank accounts. If you own your home it does not count toward that $2000, but the value of your car(s) over $4650 does.
And if that family of four qualifies, they may receive up to $506 minus 30% of the net household income per month. (Net income is gross minus a standard deduction and some child care and medical expenses.)
I wouldn't want to try to support a family of four on those numbers.
Where is the money going instead, and what is capping the family in question's income? I'm assuming this family of four is a mother, father and two children. Why does this family have two children in a situation where their income is so incredibly low that they cannot afford to feed them healthy foods?
The answers to those questions will inevitably vary, but for the most part, I think the answers are almost always going to be pretty telling as to why the family can't afford healthy food. There are always exceptions, obviously, but you cannot generalize from those exceptions.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Yes, it can be done. But it isn't easy. And buying in bulk and freezing isn't possible if you live in an apartment with one of those itty-bitty apartment size refrigerator-freezers.
We host a food pantry in our church. It's right outside my office. I see people every day who are trying to get by, trying to feed their families, and some of them even trying to make healthy food choices. I'm not going to minimize the effort that takes, when I can go to the farmers' market and buy yummy fresh produce and go to artisan bakeries and buy $5 a loaf whole grain breads.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Besides the money savings in dkw's example, there's also the matter of time. I don't have kids, and only work one reasonably low-stress job, and still the idea of spending 30 minutes cooking when I get home sometimes seems exhausting. The mac & cheese would take 5 minutes, and with 4 hungry kids wanting to know when dinner's ready and can I help them with their homework and mommy billy's hitting me those extra 25 minutes make a difference.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
If I seemed to imply that it was easy, then I'm sorry. I didn't mean to. I know it's hard.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Yes, it can be done. But it isn't easy. And buying in bulk and freezing isn't possible if you live in an apartment with one of those itty-bitty apartment size refrigerator-freezers.
We host a food pantry in our church. It's right outside my office. I see people every day who are trying to get by, trying to feed their families, and some of them even trying to make healthy food choices. I'm not going to minimize the effort that takes, when I can go to the farmers' market and buy yummy fresh produce and go to artisan bakeries and buy $5 a loaf whole grain breads.
Where do you live that the only sources for healthy food are farmers' market produce and artisan bakeries with $5 loaves of bread? Even Hawaii has cheaper alternatives.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
If the price of kosher meat wasn't so extortionate, I'd probably be twice my size.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian:
quote:Originally posted by dkw: I wouldn't want to try to support a family of four on those numbers.
My father raised 8 of us kids on a policeman's salary of about $24,000 a year- no food stamps. My mother worked hard in the home to make what he provided enough and we were never hungry.
Note, though, that that 24K/year isn't in 2006 dollars. I'm not sure how old you are, but I know that you're an adult, so that was probably long enough ago for the buying power of a dollar to have been significantly greater.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I didn't say those were the only choices. They are my choices, which I can afford. And they make healthy eating more enjoyable.
People who don't have those choices have to work harder to eat healthy.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: I didn't say those were the only choices. They are my choices, which I can afford. And they make healthy eating more enjoyable.
People who don't have those choices have to work harder to eat healthy.
You're right, I misread that. Sorry!
And yes, a lot of people have to work harder to eat healthy, but it's almost always doable. When money or time is a factor, it's a matter of what and how much you're willing to sacrifice. It's not like eating healthy is a right (which is enough of an issue to carry its own thread).
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:When money or time is a factor, it's a matter of what and how much you're willing to sacrifice.
Why is it that no one sees a fat man and thinks, "Oh, look at that wonderful person, who's willing to sacrifice his own health to spend more quality time with his wife and child?"
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
It's not easy. But isn't that partially what being an adult and a parent is about? Making tough choices and sacrifices?
If your kid's health is so unimportant to you that you're not willing to put in an extra 45 minutes a day that's really sad. There's also a short term & long term cost/benefit analysis here. Feeding them mac & cheese and other cheap overprocessed foods every day saves money now, but how much are you and they going to spend in health related costs in the coming years?
Also dkw, I'll see your $2 mac and cheese and raise you 4 cups of brown rice cooked w/ 4 eggs stirfried with 2 cups of frozen veggie mix, & 2 tbs olive oil to make some excellent fried rice for $1.45 total. About the same prep time as mac and cheese. I wasn't trying to make the cheapest meal possible, but merely trying to show you could make a restaraunt quality meal for less than half the cost of McDonald's fare. People have choices.
Edit: It was only 8 years ago, so it wasn't too much of a difference. I'm sure the difference in buying power is more than made up by have 4 extra mouths to feed.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Around here, Farmer's Market produce is actually cheaper than the low-cost grocery stores. But the Farmer's Market is located down-town, and only open on the weekends. If you don't have a car, you're much more likely to go to the nearest grocery store that's on the bus line and buy the crappy iceburg lettuce and cardboard tomatoes that've been shipped in from across the country and don't have half the nutritional value. And spending an hour and a half wandering between stalls to find the produce I want also is a luxury compared to walking into a 30' x 20' space where they provide a cart, take credit cards and food stamps, and you can be in and out in 20 minutes.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Why is it that no one sees a fat man and thinks, "Oh, look at that wonderful person, who's willing to sacrifice his own health to spend more quality time with his wife and child?"
Maybe because it's possible to do both? Some of the best times my husband has with his children (not his wife right now because chemo has made her very weak) is playing touch football in the yard?
And some of the best times and best conversations I have with all my kids but my teenager in particular is when we go to the park? The kids play in the creek and swing and Natalie and I walk around the track and talk about her friends and her life.
You don't have to sacrifice time with your wife and child to exercise. It's more fun and better for all if you make exercise and healthy living a family affair and do it together.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: The rule was one that requires students to have a job of 20/hrs a week to be eligible. I was a graduate student, trying desperately to get a job--a FULL-TIME one. Since I didn't have a job, I was denied. No way to appeal. I had a mini-breakdown in the lady's office and walked out. It is not a happy memory. I couldn't even manage to drive home.
That sucks, although it's also odd: I'm not sure how much the policies differentiate by state, but you should have been able to re-apply. In Seattle, some people re-applied as soon as 30 days after having their application denied. Sounds to me like whoever was working that day didn't like the idea of someone getting a graduate education receiving food stamps on their tax dollars.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:When money or time is a factor, it's a matter of what and how much you're willing to sacrifice.
Why is it that no one sees a fat man and thinks, "Oh, look at that wonderful person, who's willing to sacrifice his own health to spend more quality time with his wife and child?"
Thankfully, I don't look at skinny people and think, "Oh, look at that hot person, who's willing to sacrifice his free time to sta in shape," either.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
It was set forth to me like a hard and fast rule which could never be broken. I didn't even make it all the way through the first application process. Although they DID wait until I came by twice and waited in the waiting room for about an hour until they told me--even though the facts were known to them before that. *shrugs*
It's over now.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You don't have to sacrifice time with your wife and child to exercise.
I think you underestimate how much exercise I would need to do to lose weight. I have two and a half hours a day in which to eat dinner, see my family, and/or tend to other affairs. In order to lose weight, I've discovered that I need to seriously -- not just casually -- work out for at least half an hour a day, or an hour every two days. While running around with Sophie would make me less sedentary, it's not the kind of exercise I'd need to keep weight off.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:You don't have to sacrifice time with your wife and child to exercise.
I think you underestimate how much exercise I would need to do to lose weight. I have two and a half hours a day in which to eat dinner, see my family, and/or tend to other affairs. In order to lose weight, I've discovered that I need to seriously -- not just casually -- work out for at least half an hour a day, or an hour every two days. While running around with Sophie would make me less sedentary, it's not the kind of exercise I'd need to keep weight off.
What else is your day filled with that you couldn't sacrifice ANY of it?
There's always something - even if it means getting a different job.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Edit: It was only 8 years ago, so it wasn't too much of a difference. I'm sure the difference in buying power is more than made up by have 4 extra mouths to feed.
Man, I'm really off my game today; I completely missed the fact that you were talking about feeding that many people. Sorry about that.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: Around here, Farmer's Market produce is actually cheaper than the low-cost grocery stores. But the Farmer's Market is located down-town, and only open on the weekends. If you don't have a car, you're much more likely to go to the nearest grocery store that's on the bus line and buy the crappy iceburg lettuce and cardboard tomatoes that've been shipped in from across the country and don't have half the nutritional value.
That's one thing that I really appreciate about Dayton--there are small farmer's markets all over the city, several of them within easy walking distance of very low income housing districts, and several more on bus routes.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
Tom, you're a smart guy. I'm not going to ask how many extra pounds you're carrying, but however much it is, do you honestly think that you're not putting your health at risk by keeping it? Is there honestly nothing you could change about your lifestyle to ensure that you'll be able to spend as many years as possible with your wife and child? I don't mean to be harsh, but you sound very cavalier about this, and I just don't understand.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It was only 8 years ago, so it wasn't too much of a difference. I'm sure the difference in buying power is more than made up by have 4 extra mouths to feed.
I'm assuming they owned their car and their house free and clear, and received a fair amount of money from the government or other charities? Because $24,000 with nine dependents is well below poverty-level, and wouldn't even be possible in most states in this country.
quote:What else is your day filled with that you couldn't sacrifice ANY of it? There's always something - even if it means getting a different job.
That's like saying that you could be a world-class pianist and a badminton champion if you found the time.
quote:Is there honestly nothing you could change about your lifestyle to ensure that you'll be able to spend as many years as possible with your wife and child?
I'm sure there is, although the health benefits aren't actually as obvious as all that. But the question here, as I see it, is whether choosing to value other things more highly than an intensive program of weight-reduction means that I'm deserving of professional and personal discrimination. When people say "you could lose a little weight if you made the following sacrifices," what they're really saying -- although so many of them refuse to admit it -- is "I think less of you because you will not do whatever it takes to be as thin as I think you should be."
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I'm not underestimating how difficult it is, Tom - remember that I'm overweight too and I know exactly how hard it is. And it gets harder. I'm having a harder time losing weight than I did five years ago, though some of that can be attributed to my lack of endurance due to chemo, not all of it can. As you get older, losing weight gets harder.
I just know that at some point you have to make the decision that it's important enough for you and do it. After dinner you and Christy could put Sophie in a jogging stroller and walk. You could take half your lunch hour and spend it lifting weights in the gym (you do work at a university right? Most universitys have gyms and reduced membership rates for employees.)
I'm not trying to criticize you or to belittle how difficult it is. One thing I've decided to do is leave home and get to school at 7:30 in the morning even though my first class is at nine so I can work out at the university gym for 45 minutes each day. It's not easy to find the time, it usually means sacrificing some sleep or re-working family time, but I do not believe that it's completely impossible for anyone. It all has to do with where you set your priorities. My kids are one of the main reasons I'm doing this. This cancer scared me, badly. I don't want to leave them - so I think it's important that I take care of myself and that I'm more healthy so I can be around longer and have a more active life. I'd love to be able to play and keep up with my grandkids when I have them someday. To do that, I've got to start taking care of myself now.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
Its also not just the price of healthy food, but spending the time and money to learn what constitutes "healthy." How many calories that individual needs, what bread is best, what meat is best, etc? It can be very difficult to sort out in a world where South Beach rules and even the food pyramid isn't what we remember growing up. I'm just now learning to cook, which I'm struggling with, and its a challenge to always question whether I should this chicken or that pork, or this pasta or that pasta, or is milk bad or good?
Its interesting because I was just talking about this last night with my boyfriend because his mother had had a dream about us and in it said some very negative things about me, including my weight, made all the more interesting because she does really like me. When I growing up, I was stick skinny. But when I hit puberty, my metabolism dropped off the face of the earth and I gained alot of weight very quickly. My body was no longer happy eating whatever it pleased and reading inside instead of playing sports. It took me all of high school, through diet and alot of dance classes, to get the weight off. I gained the Freshmen 15 when I started college and that weight didn't come off until my sophomore year when I was broke and mental depression killed my appepite and I starved the 15lbs off. I lost another 10lbs through exercise as part of my program to manage my anxiety. I was just hovering on the border between healthy and overweight for my height. For a year, I did almost 2 hours of cardio for 5 days a week without any change. I was completely stuck. Membership through our school gym is free but getting a personal trainer to help me break through my physical wall, was not. My parents, who are well enough off because I could not afford it myself, got me a trainer for the summer to teach me proper strength training (since without that instruction is quite easy to waste your time or even hurt yourself.) Course, at the same time I started a new medication which added some pounds so its back to the uphill fight.
My poor boyfriend, who eats like a horse, now understands why I never finish a plate he serves me (he's a very talented cook). Its a constant battle of willpower for me to drag myself to the gym everyday and always turn down my favorite foods, and this is just to maintain a weight that I'm still not happy with.
And it doesn't help when I KNOW I'm healthy, but by social standards I'm still "chubby."
Sometimes it easy for me to be disgusted by someone who is overweight. But its just a matter of reminding myself that I don't know them and I don't know if maybe yesterday they started a new lifestyle to change their weight and health.
Its not just a matter of "diet and exercise" but of having the financial means to a) know how to diet and exercise well and b) actually do it. Parking in the back at the mall is a great way to get in some extra cardio (not safe, but healthy), but that alone is not enough for everyone's body. I'd love to skip summer gym membership fees and jog outside, but in my neighborhood its just not responsible or safe and so I shell out the money for the treadmill access.
Something about society has to change. We have to educate better and we should provide the incentives and aid for change. My dad's company actually provides discounted personal trainers because they know healthy employees are less strain on company health insurance. Healthy employees also are more likely to participate in charity runs and bike marathons which promote good image for the business.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
quote:That's like saying that you could be a world-class pianist and a badminton champion if you found the time.
Except that we aren't born with badminton racquets in our hands or the Suzuki Method in our brains. We are born with stomachs, though, and the need to eat about 3 times a day. And that means we get three chances a day to decide how we want to live. Some days are harder than others, but if your health and longevity is a priority for you, you can choose to educate yourself about food and make the right choices.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:And it doesn't help when I KNOW I'm healthy, but by social standards I'm still "chubby."
Oddly, a lot of people I know have the exact opposite problem, especially girls. Example: a friend of mine who's a size 6, 34B boobs, is 5'5" and weighs between 120 and 130 lbs is technically obese because she has 31% bodyfat.
<shrug> The technical and social rules for what qualifies as overweight will always baffle me.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
They did own the house free and clear by the time I was 8 due to massive saving & investing when they had few kids. They owned 1 vehicle, also theirs. They received no charity or government help- except for the school lunch program.
Edit: And it was in Idaho, so cost of living was fairly low.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But its just a matter of reminding myself that I don't know them and I don't know if maybe yesterday they started a new lifestyle to change their weight and health.
I submit that you shouldn't be disgusted by them regardless of whether or not you know this information.
quote:Except that we aren't born with badminton racquets in our hands or the Suzuki Method in our brains. We are born with stomachs, though, and the need to eat about 3 times a day.
As this need to eat is actually the enemy of sensible eating, a better analogy would be if we had someone living in our house who, every time he saw us practicing badminton, hit us over our heads with sticks.
quote:They received no charity or government help...
If this was eight years ago, they would have qualified for thousands of dollars a year from the EIC. I'm assuming they filed taxes?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I remember gaining weight when I hit puberty.
I very deliberately did not worry about it because I was not willing to hand over my time and feelings of self worth to the general public. I wasn't going to work hard to get random guys' approval. I was NOT going to spend all my time in an attempt to get anyone's approval. I would do it if I darn well wanted to, and for no other reason. I tried a few sports, discovered I like reading better, and there you go.
I'm proud of teenage Katie.
I see a lot of people giving up autonomy over their time and their feelings of self-worth in order to appear pleasing. I think that's lame. I think when you're an adult, it's okay because hopefully identity is formed by then, but for teenagers, pressuring them to exercise so judgmental strangers or family members are happy looking at them is practically abuse.
I love going to the gym now, and it's because of some really delightful endorphins and it makes my life better in general. If someone likes me less when I'm less skinny than when I am more, then it's their loss and they aren't worth my time. Their companionship is not worth the cost of my self-respect.
[ July 10, 2006, 05:20 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
They did file taxes. If I remember right Tom, the EIC at the time was pretty minimal until about 5 years ago. I was talking to my mother recently and she mentioned that the amount they could have gotten back jumped up about the time us 4 older boys had jobs of our own (I'm the oldest). Of course, as we get jobs, we lose dependent status, so it's kind of a catch-22.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Here's the thing about eating healthy:
If you're eating healthy foods, you can eat a lot MORE (not calorie-wise necessarily, but just in terms of the actual amount of food) and still be healthy. I mean, a McDonald's Big n Tasty is 540 calories ALONE. I could have an entire meal, side dishes and all, that was around 540 calories. So it's possible that you don't really have to eat that much LESS.
And I don't even take time to prepare my food, really. I live on sandwiches and pitas and pretty much anything that can be thrown on wheat bread and toasted in the oven. But I eat a LOT of toasted sandwich-like things.
In terms of time, it's quicker for me to toast a pita or make a pita pizza than to make Mac'n'Cheese, unless I'm making the microwave version.
-pH
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
quote:
quote: Except that we aren't born with badminton racquets in our hands or the Suzuki Method in our brains. We are born with stomachs, though, and the need to eat about 3 times a day.
As this need to eat is actually the enemy of sensible eating, a better analogy would be if we had someone living in our house who, every time he saw us practicing badminton, hit us over our heads with sticks.
No, Tom. It's more like we've got a badminton coach living in our house, reminding us to practice 3 times a day. What we choose to do with that reminder is up to us.
This analogy is getting lamer and lamer, but I stand by my point: while starting an exercise regime is a major and daunting lifestyle change, what you eat is a decision you're already making at least 3 times a day. Changing what you eat requires some research and a little willpower at first, but it's something you can do within the next few hours to make an enormous difference in your life.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
I'm better than just about everyone. I work full-time-and-then-some to support my family, shop wisely for healthy foods, always have the time to cook nutritious meals from scratch, exercise regularly, sing in the choir, and do volunteer work for those less fortunate. And there's no excuse for any one of you to be less perfect and full of yourselves than I am. I have nothing but disdain for anyone who is not as perfect as I am (or my sainted mother, who fed 39 of us on $1.27 a week).
Oh bull____! Get over yourselves and get off your high horses and just try to accept that no one is perfect. How about you just respect other people without judging the heck out of them.
Gosh!
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: I'm better than just about everyone. I work full-time-and-then-some to support my family, shop wisely for healthy foods, always have the time to cook nutritious meals from scratch, exercise regularly, sing in the choir, and do volunteer work for those less fortunate. And there's no excuse for any one of you to be less perfect and full of yourselves than I am. I have nothing but disdain for anyone who is not as perfect as I am (or my sainted mother, who fed 39 of us on $1.27 a week).
Oh bull____! Get over yourselves and get off your high horses and just try to accept that no one is perfect. How about you just respect other people without judging the heck out of them.
Gosh!
Pardon me for praising my mother. You can be sure it won't happen on this forum again.
/Getting off my high horse now, and thanking Tante for helping my mother off hers.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Bao, you do come off as pretty high-and-mighty, y'know.
And I'm sorry if my last post offended anyone, I was just saying that I'm a lazy college student who won't eat anything homemade if it takes more than 10-15min to prepare, and it's still possible to eat well and not starve yourself. I mean, no way in hell am I going to make some elaborate crazy dish with sides and some garnish in the shape of a rose or something. But I don't feed anyone else, either.
-pH
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I certainly don't persecute or discriminate against fat people. I will not, however, at any point, be teaching my children that it's "okay" to be fat.
If you teach your kids it's not okay to be fat, you discriminate against fat people.
You believe, however, that it is right to do so.
Is it discrimination if I teach my kids it's not healthy to contract venereal diseases or to use drugs?
Obesity's a significant danger to health, career prospects, and romantic chances. If my kid can't perform or won't be considered for high-paying jobs, can't sexually attract women, or is likely to die young -- all for a condition many people can, with exercise and good diet, keep under control -- of course I'll discourage it.
I'm not sure this is analogous to any other kind of prejudice -- racial and sexual and sexual-orientation-based discrimination all rely on baseless claims that blacks/Latinos, women, or homosexuals are somehow lesser than whites, men, or heterosexuals. But it's not a disputable fact that it's, indeed, healthier to be slim than fat; and moreover, weight is often a controllable condition, with little excuse for existence. Despite complaints, I'm not sure it's unreasonable to suspect sloth upon observation of the extremely overweight.
That said, I don't endorse ridicule of the overweight. Some can't exercise, for various reasons; others have a disposition toward gaining weight, such as mothers and the elderly. But even mothers can exercise after giving birth, and even the elderly can swim without undue stress on their joints. If Michelle and I marry and she has (someone else's) children, I expect her to gain weight, and I'll love her for it. When we're old, we'll both gain weight, and love each other for it. But if she becomes obese, I'm going to have her exercise with me -- I want a happy life together, adventurous, sexually fulfilling, and long. I don't think it's wrong or unfair to want both of us to be healthy. Can you seriously assert that it is?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
People actually still eat 3 meals a day? I'm doing good if I have time to eat one and a half.
AJ
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It's more like we've got a badminton coach living in our house, reminding us to practice 3 times a day.
No. Because a badminton coach is giving you the right advice. And for those people who overeat, the coach is telling you to go play checkers instead, or working hard to ingrain bad form and terrible strategy.
Your point -- that you could at any time suddenly start practicing badminton correctly (and three times a day isn't even necessarily accurate, since many people find that eating more often helps them keep weight down better) -- is certainly valid. But for people who have the kind of corrupted, corrupting coach we're talking about, they first have to overcome that coach's advice -- and then must resist both listening to his ever-present whispers and their memory of his previous teachings every time they choose to practice.
I definitely have a poor coach. It takes a lot -- and I mean a lot -- to make me full; even more importantly, it takes a long time for me to feel full. And most of the things that are good for me taste, to my poor tongue, profoundly bad. I cannot describe to you how wonderful and how right, say, a cheesecake tastes. Now, I know I'm not supposed to eat cheesecake -- and, for that matter, I don't eat cheesecake -- but that doesn't prevent every single cell of my body, in response to cheesecake, from saying "Hey! This is right! This is good! It is a wonderful thing, this having of cheesecake!"
The idea that some people might have some internal instinct that tells them to eat well is charming; I look at that possibility the same way I regard the possibility that some people have spoken to God.
--------
quote: Is it discrimination if I teach my kids it's not healthy to contract venereal diseases or to use drugs?
Yes. I think some people on this thread don't really understand what discrimination is. It's not a bad thing.
Many of the posts on this thread have attempted to justify discrimination against fat people. And I'm not sure that's a bad thing. As people have observed, being obese is bad for you, just like being a drug user or smoker or engineer. There's no real reason not to discriminate against the fat, and it probably serves a function for those people who are not already fat. That the ones who are fat suffer for it is, in comparison, probably a fair trade overall.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Thanks for the second opinion pH, but in the spirit of being high and mighty, when I care about it, I'll ask for it.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Bao, I meant no insult to your mother. My mother is also praiseworthy. She is so exemplary that it would be unfair to expect regular people to meet her high achievements.
That I find my own mother to be praiseworthy and exemplary does not mean that I judge lesser mortals harshly, though.
That was my point.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
I'm not sure if this is what you guys are saying or not, Tom and Tante, but it really bugs me when I tell people that I'm eating well and losing weight because of it, and they respond by assuming it's easy for me and I don't have to work at it as hard as they do.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
If being thin were easy, I believe that no one would choose to be fat.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: Is it discrimination if I teach my kids it's not healthy to contract venereal diseases or to use drugs?
Yes. I think some people on this thread don't really understand what discrimination is. It's not a bad thing.
Many of the posts on this thread have attempted to justify discrimination against fat people. And I'm not sure that's a bad thing. As people have observed, being obese is bad for you, just like being a drug user or smoker or engineer. There's no real reason not to discriminate against the fat, and it probably serves a function for those people who are not already fat. That the ones who are fat suffer for it is, in comparison, probably a fair trade overall.
I think you might be confusing discrimination with prejudice -- racial and sexual discrimination imply some sort of persecution, perhaps even necessitate it. Discrimination for fat people might involve a sexual or instinctual preference for the slim, but in no way implies persecution of the fat.
That said, many people do persecute the fat -- from schoolyard bullies to employers to the media -- but I think you're merging two distinct attitudes into one. I don't want my kids to be overweight because I want them to be healthy and happy and have a good chance of netting good women. If they were overweight, though, I wouldn't be disgusted with them or try to hurt them. I think it's an important difference.
As an aside, you mentioned that it takes a lot for you to feel full. If you're interested, I might be able to suggest a few things that help me keep my own weight down. You have my e-mail address, I think.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
If you don't want people knocking your loved ones off high horses, be sure not to put them up there in the first place.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:This thread has renewed my faith that people are pretty much jerks.
Porter, this was probably the rudest thing posted in this entire thread, in my opinion. At the very least, I think it was the most pointless (well, until this post that is) .
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Was something deleted?
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Here's something I find extremely interesting.
My endocrinologist, who has spent decades studying and treating obesity (as well as diabetes) says that trans fats may be the reason for the obesity epidemic in developed countries these days, particularly the U.S. The thing is, they don't exist in nature. We pretty much invented them with our food processing methods, since the early part of the last century. He explained that insulin resistance (which is likely to be the cause of about 90% of the obesity out there) is caused by a difficulty in getting glucose into the cells from the bloodstream. Because your cells have no internal energy, your metabolism is extremely low. Because your insulin output is high (a way your body compensates for cellular insulin resistance) it sends a signal to your liver to shut down the conversion of fats into glucose, leaving them for the body to store away instead. And finally, because your insulin level is high, combined with your cellular glucose level being so low, you are getting a double shot of tremendous enormous cravings for food, particularly carbs, and especially in the evenings. These three things, combined with the low energy levels that result from no glucose in your cells, encouraging you to rest more, tend to make you pack on pounds very quickly, and lose them only with tremendous effort (and further starvation of your essential cellular functions).
The interesting thing is that, for people with certain genetic predispositions, it may well be that trans-fats initiate this chain of events by blocking the entrance of glucose into the cells.
Proteins and Carbs are broken down and rebuilt in the process of digestion and metabolism, but fat molecules go straight into the cell walls from the gut. Trans fats have a different molecular structure than natural fats. There is research that gives my doctor reason to believe they may be the cause of the obesity/diabetes epidemic in the world today.
It wouldn't be the first time people got sick in large numbers from a food processing change. In the early part of the last century, pellagra was a widespread sickness caused by the lack of some particular vitamin (I think it was one of the B vitamins) among the poor, caused by a new way of processing corn that eliminated the germ. For a decade or so, the hospitals were full of pellagra patients, then they realized what was causing the problem and fixed it, and pellagra largely went away.
Wouldn't it be funny if all the scorn and blame heaped on fat people was totally misplaced? If their problem was a disease, which was not caused by their lack of virtue at all, compared to skinny people, but simply by a molecular process which threw their metabolism and hunger feedback mechanisms out of kilter and set them up to gain weight?
The young often feel that youth is a virtue, and old people simply don't have the mental fortitude they have, or so I've seen. The well often think that health is a virtue, and the sick are simply poor specimens who coddle themselves. The intelligent often feel that intelligence is a virtue, and that their less mentally endowed compatriots simply choose to be ignorant and slow. The beautiful feel more virtuous than the ugly. I think this is a fact of nature, and not one that seems particularly wrong or unjust, but just is. The only cure for it is living a long time, and observing human nature, and even then there are dozens of unconscious ways in which I'm sure I still feel virtuous for things that were simply gifts, that I haven't earned at all. In the same way, thin people will always feel virtuous compared to the overweight. That's just how life is.
But it will be cool if we figure out the cause of the epidemic and cure it, nevertheless.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Tatiana, that was a wonderful post. Thanks. Does your endocrinologist have a list of sources that he's read in his research? I'd love to have it.
ETA: I am especially interested, because I have insulin resistance, and am on the IR Diet because of it, which involves limiting carbs and balancing them with protein.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Unfortunately I don't have a list of sources. He is usually very cutting edge on this stuff, and he spends a good deal of his time traveling around the country and lecturing other doctors on the latest findings. From what I gather, this is very preliminary. Certainly it might not pan out. He almost always has some new angle on things every time I visit him. But it's quite intriguing, nevertheless.
I find that even the possibility that this might be the case, or something similar, gives me a whole new viewpoint about obesity and overweight.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I'm trying to avoid all artificial fats, just in case it turns out to be right. No margarine, and only olive oil and canola oil for cooking. Real butter in small amounts. No idea how long it will take to replace every fat molecule in every cell wall in your body. Probably a good while.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Well, I know that the women in my online support group for the IR Diet are having success, when they didn't have success on other diets. (We don't really see it as a diet, though, but a way of life... and one that isn't restrictive either.) It's awesome. Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I don't really understand how fat relates to insulin resistance, though. I have a hard time understanding this stuff, unless it's put very simply.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think you might be confusing discrimination with prejudice....
Nope. Discrimination does not imply persecution. That we've come to equate the two is one of the failures of liberalism.
And besides, as you admit, fat people are persecuted; that's the whole point of the studies cited in the article. That most people don't consciously persecute them, and that many people believe they should be persecuted in some way (because their fatness in itself demonstrates some quality lacking in them), doesn't invalidate the accuracy of the observation; it merely attempts to justify the persecution.
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
Tatiana, I use an alternative to margarine called Earth Balance. It's made from non-hydrogenated vegetable oils. In fact, it's pretty much replaced butter in our household, except for rare circumstances. It even works well in baking.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote: I don't really understand how fat relates to insulin resistance, though. I have a hard time understanding this stuff, unless it's put very simply.
The way I've heard one diabetes nurse explain it is to picture insulin molecules as little trucks that haul glucose around. Fats clog up the garage doors (receptors on your cells) so they can't park properly.
Is that simple enough? Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Great analogy, dkw! It also means that the morbidly obese guy you see at the snack machine all the time may be desperately trying to get enough nutrition into his cells to live.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Aah. I knew that there were fewer receptors, but I didn't know WHY.
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
quote: And finally, because your insulin level is high, combined with your cellular glucose level being so low, you are getting a double shot of tremendous enormous cravings for food, particularly carbs, and especially in the evenings. These three things, combined with the low energy levels that result from no glucose in your cells, encouraging you to rest more, tend to make you pack on pounds very quickly, and lose them only with tremendous effort (and further starvation of your essential cellular functions).
My diabetes kicked my butt this way when I was a teenager and all those growth hormones threw off my diabetes. I gained sixty pounds in one year, and didn't grow an inch, and never lost it. It is a constant annoyance to me that when going out to eat with friends, they could pick and chose what they wanted to eat off their plate... they have never known the feeling of their cells being starved, those cravings that are so unnatural and almost painful. When I see someone who is severely overweight, I feel really, really sad for them, because I think of how this must be happening inside them. And without the help of type one diabetes. I can't even imagine how much they must crave food, never being able to be full. Recently, I've been tearing myself away from this carb-addiction, and I am able to feel FULL for the first time in years and years. But I will never forget what it is like to not be able to feed your cells.
Posted by Sharpie (Member # 482) on :
I have written and rewritten responses to this thread all day and have thrown out at least one snarky one and one very angry one. I knew that people could be judgmental towards overweight people; what I didn't know was that many people thought it was okay to be that way.
I'm sad and angry. (I know that the thread has moved on from that earlier point, but I took forever even writing this much.)
For the "record", I have a very overweight son. I am not ignorant about nutrition or fitness; nor is he. We work hard, with his physician, to come up with strategies for improving his health. He is not lazy, apathetic, or any of the other things that have been suggested as possibilities.
Maybe some of you will say "oh, but we didn't mean HIM then." Yes, you did.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I think the big problem is that some people judge fat people based solely on their fatness, and assume that there couldn't be any reason for it other than pure laziness. But that's THEIR character flaw, not the fat person's.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*agrees with Sharpie*
*agrees with Tante*
*resists temptation to post responses*
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
You know, I'm missing the really horrible things that people are saying about fat people on this thread. From what I've read, I've taken one of the harshest stances and I don't think I deserve nearly any of the accusations and insults that have been made.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
You know, I gained several pounds this past year. I'm now technically overweight, though not significantly so. It was because I didn't exercise and eat right. I admit that. However, I was depressed to the degree that I had a lot of trouble even getting out of bed in the morning.
I acknowledge that I gained weight because of the way I lived my life in recent months. But please remember that some of us are doing the best we can under the circumstances. I'm not using this as an excuse not to change. I'm working on getting better. I'm going to counseling to work on the depression, and I'm trying to exercise and eat right to the best of my ability. I'm not saying you're saying it's easy to be healthy; I'm saying that for some people at some times, it's downright impossible.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sharpie: I have written and rewritten responses to this thread all day and have thrown out at least one snarky one and one very angry one. I knew that people could be judgmental towards overweight people; what I didn't know was that many people thought it was okay to be that way.
I'm sad and angry. (I know that the thread has moved on from that earlier point, but I took forever even writing this much.)
For the "record", I have a very overweight son. I am not ignorant about nutrition or fitness; nor is he. We work hard, with his physician, to come up with strategies for improving his health. He is not lazy, apathetic, or any of the other things that have been suggested as possibilities.
Maybe some of you will say "oh, but we didn't mean HIM then." Yes, you did.
While I'm sympathetic to your situation, I think you need to re-read this thread, like I just did. I'm honestly having trouble figuring out what it was that's making you so upset.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Shig, I hate that kind of thinking. Very, very difficult is not the same as impossible. There is a world of difference between the two.
I'm not one to judge others' burdens. I've no doubt many on this site carry a much heavier one than I've ever had to, but I refuse to accept that there is nothing they can do and I don't think it's healthy for them to either.
Speaking out of my rear here, during your depression, you could have lived differently. You could have gone exercizing. That is not to say that it wouldn't have been incredibly hard to have done so, much harder than perhaps anything I've ever done.
I'm not trying to judge your strength as a person or make this sound like it's something that anyone could rightly expect you to do. For all I know it would have been a task of heroic strength. I'm just trying to claim that your depression didn't completely rob you of your volition. Although it may have been staggeringly difficult, there wasn't nothing you could do about it.
Again, this isn't a matter of blame. It's more a matter of possibilities. I hate that people get themselves thinking that there is absolutely nothing they can do.
---
For obese people, there are some for there really is nothing they can do about it. For many others, there may be many difficulties in the way. For a large number of people, however, there is relatively little that ultimately stands in their way.
I don't support scorn, and not just because it doesn't work, but I do think we, as a culture, need to think differently about things like obesity. Of course, I think this will only come about as part of a huge overhaul in our thinking about responsibility in general, so not exactly holding my breath.
[ July 11, 2006, 12:41 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I think you might be confusing discrimination with prejudice -- racial and sexual discrimination imply some sort of persecution, perhaps even necessitate it. Discrimination for fat people might involve a sexual or instinctual preference for the slim, but in no way implies persecution of the fat.
Nope. Discrimination does not imply persecution. That we've come to equate the two is one of the failures of liberalism.
And besides, as you admit, fat people are persecuted; that's the whole point of the studies cited in the article. That most people don't consciously persecute them, and that many people believe they should be persecuted in some way (because their fatness in itself demonstrates some quality lacking in them), doesn't invalidate the accuracy of the observation; it merely attempts to justify the persecution.
Tom, that's almost exactly what I said in the post you quoted. I disagree with you on one count -- racial discrimination, by definition, means preference for a certain race. If all men are made equal, to prefer one race is to disdain the other -- and as I've seen no evidence but bigotry to prefer one race to another, I submit that racial discrimination does imply prejudice.
Discrimination between fat and thin, however, expresses a preference for thin; and since there are notable health and beauty benefits to slimness, I submit there isn't persecution when preferring slim looks to overweight looks.
That said, yes, fat people are often victimized, and attacks on them are often justified by the natural preference for slim to fat -- but again, the two beliefs are not the same. I'm attracted to slim women, but I would never harass or harm a fat woman simply because I would prefer her thin. There's a huge difference between the two.
I don't think it's victimization to say that being overweight is unhealthy, or even to infer sloth or gluttony when observing the obese -- at least, no more than it is to infer sloth when observing the consistently unwashed. It is harassment to abuse the overweight for their appearance, but I don't think anyone here's endorsing that.
As regards the issue of the thread, I'm against proposing obesity as a threatened class. If it comes to it, though I prefer a small government, perhaps we can divert some of the massive federal subsidies for American farmers to make healthier food cheaper -- or perhaps even better, raise taxes on unhealthy food and keep healthy food prices constant. Healthy food would grow cheaper as supply expands to meet demand, and the prices will still remain relatively high, endorsing smaller portions for meals.
It'll never happen, but it's a superior solution to enabling obesity.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
That thread is the straw that broke this camel's back.
That's not a good thing.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:I disagree with you on one count -- racial discrimination, by definition, means preference for a certain race. If all men are made equal, to prefer one race is to disdain the other -- and as I've seen no evidence but bigotry to prefer one race to another, I submit that racial discrimination does imply prejudice.
Since you brought up attracting mates, would you argue that a man who prefers brunette women is prejudiced or persecuting other women?
-pH
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
I'm only posting this to lighten the mood:
quote:Wouldn't it be funny if all the scorn and blame heaped on fat people was totally misplaced? If their problem was a disease, which was not caused by their lack of virtue at all, compared to skinny people, but simply by a molecular process which threw their metabolism and hunger feedback mechanisms out of kilter and set them up to gain weight?
As a skinny guy, reading this thread with interest, Tatiana's quote above struck me as slightly humorous. Here's why:
I agree with her. I have a hard time convincing myself that any virtue told me to run 3 miles today. Self-discipline, maybe? It's a stretch.
But heck, I just spent 30 minutes thinking about this and I still don't possess a solid answer. Thanks to Hatrack, I now have another critical-thinking exercise to indulge myself in. Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH:
quote:I disagree with you on one count -- racial discrimination, by definition, means preference for a certain race. If all men are made equal, to prefer one race is to disdain the other -- and as I've seen no evidence but bigotry to prefer one race to another, I submit that racial discrimination does imply prejudice.
Since you brought up attracting mates, would you argue that a man who prefers brunette women is prejudiced or persecuting other women?
-pH
No, and that's exactly consistent with my point above:
Discrimination between fat and thin, however, expresses a preference for thin; and since there are notable health and beauty benefits to slimness, I submit there isn't persecution when preferring slim looks to overweight looks.
I'm not sure you can make the case that if all men are equal, then all beauty is equal. Sexual appeal's a widely variable property, and judging individual beauty is hardly immoral.
If you're determined to make a racial analogy, then consider that it's not racist for a man to be more sexually attracted to a black woman than to a white woman, no more immoral than it is for a man to be more sexually attracted to a slim woman than to an overweight woman, or a brunette to a blonde. All men might deserve equal rights, but to be found beautiful doesn't number among them -- beauty is an extraordinarily subjective property. So long as people aren't abused for being overweight or dark-skinned or blonde, I see no persecution.
In fact, I'm not sure I understand your point at all -- are you arguing that since racists declare one race supreme to all others and are thus called bigoted, then men who find more sexual appeal in dark hair than blonde hair must then be bigoted? Do you really believe the two are similar?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Where, at any point, did I make that claim, Lalo?
-pH
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Yeah, hence my question. What point are you trying to make?
Personally, I'm of the opinion that overweight people deserve equal rights with the rest of the world, and that being found unattractive doesn't merit legally protected status, be your affliction fat, baldness, or a harelip. While I'm not usually attracted to obese women -- Queen Latifah being a notable exception -- and don't consider my lack of excitement over them unreasonable or abusive, I certainly don't disdain anyone for being overweight, nor would I ever refuse to befriend anyone for the way they look.
I have intense respect for Tom, and were I born a woman, baby boy better know I'd be chasing him with a net. Tom's one of the most hilarious and intelligent people I know, and were I secure enough in my masculinity to say it, I would've been attracted to him if I were of the notably opposite gender. I really hope he doesn't mistake my refusal to consider appeal discrimination (if that's what it's called) based on weight or any other factor a criticism of him -- based on the way Tom carries himself, I'd call him one of the most attractive men I know.
Okay, I'll get ready to defend my sexuality in three... two...
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Was I trying to make a point? I thought I was asking a question.
-pH
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Er. Okay. Did I answer it to your satisfaction?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I'm still not understanding your lines between preferring slim to overweight vs. preferring one race to another. I feel like you're blurring the lines between preference based on appearance and preference based on...I don't know what to call it, perceived internal inferiority?
I mean, would it be prejudicial if one claimed that all albinos were superior to all blonde people with brown eyes if the belief extended beyond a simple beauty preference?
-pH
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
I think you mistake superiority with sexual attraction. While some men are more attracted to Jessica Alba than to Rosie O'Donnell, does anyone really think Alba's an inherently superior person because of it?
Beauty's as shallow as it is subjective, and no more reflects on a person's worth than their sense of style. While I think sexual attraction is a tremendously important part of a romantic relationship, I don't see how it extends beyond those limits -- I mean, I like Squick a ton, even though it's horribly clear why he goes by the name "squicky." Compare this to white supremacists, who feel a person's skin color not only determines that person's beauty, but their very worth as a human being. Not only is this standard arbitrary and meaningless, but it attacks an entire race on the information gleaned from a relatively small, if at all existent, pool of sample minorities.
You know, it's possible to say something like "I find Filipina women unattractive," since many in the race share common features -- height, hair color, often skin tone. I think it's a particularly foolish statement to make, since I've witnessed astoundingly beautiful women from every race, but it can be a defendable statement from a sadly limited man. But I don't think it's possible to say "I find black people to be inferior to white people," since that goes from assuming a race shares common physical traits to assuming a race shares common spiritual traits -- that is, you can (however unwisely) assert that most Chinese men are short, but I don't see how it's possible to assert most black men are criminals.
I hope that made my position clearer?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I think this is definitely one of those cases where the more metaphors and examples that are used, the less clear the original point is. I now have no idea what Lalo or pH are discussing at all
I will say that I don't feel like fat people need special protection under the law. I've been a wide range of weights, as have several of my friends. If you're eating a lot and not burning calories, you get fat. If you eat less and work out more, you get less fat. Baring a severe medical problem, nobody has to be fat. Yeah, there are endomorphs and ectomorphs, but there's a big difference between husky and Fat.
I will say that it's downright rude when you're seated on a plane between two very fat people. Where are average sized rights being protected?
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Lately I've been gaining weight on purpose. Unlike most guys, I have the body type common to most females where fat gets stored on your hips and thighs, instead of the stomach. I think they call it "hourglass" or something like that.
This is good in the sense that my organs more or less can't get clogged, but bad in the sense that I can't build up most of my upper body muscles, and my posture suffers from the effect this has on my lower back muscles.
After I broke each of my wrists (different occasions) and they had recovered, I used dumbells to rebuild very weak arm muscles. I ended up stopping this after they got better- winter came long and I got lazy- and fat started to build up. I later used this to build up my arm strength, but realised that 1. It was pretty pointless with weak back muscles, and 2. Big arms would look bad with a small chest.
So I've lately been applying the same process to build up my back, lower leg, chest, and stomach muscles, and it's working.
So I'm gaining weight on purpose. It leaves me wondering why there's so much social stigma against weight gain, and why pretty much the entire fitness industry is directed towards "weight loss".
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote: I will say that it's downright rude when you're seated on a plane between two very fat people. Where are average sized rights being protected?
Tell the airlines start paying attention to human factors designers. They KNOW when they put in those seats that 50% of the adult US population is too wide for the space provided.
I fly a lot. I deliberately spend the entire flight with my arms crossed so that my shoulders are pulled in so that I don't scrunch my neighbors. Guess what...on some airplanes, the way they installed the seats in relation to the window openings means that the wall actually forces me sideways into the person next to me because the seat doesn't line up with the space where the window is, but with lump in the wall where the window frame is.
Airlines are also transitioning from large jets to more of the commuter style jets (partly because they can be more sure of filling all the seats, and partly because the regional carriers have less powerful union representation, and thus lower salaries). If the seats on a Boeing are cramped, the ones on a Canadair Regional Jet are tortuous.
So...look for this problem to get worse in the future, not better.
At any rate, I always request an aisle seat. That way, as long as the cart is not being pushed up and down the aisle, I can lean that way and not disturb my neighbor. I've gotten quite adept at holding this uncomfortable position for hours at a time.
I've rarely had anyone get huffy with me about encroaching on their space. There are so many flying etiquette breaches that if we all started picking on each other for them, the plane would erupt into violent mayhem, I suspect. The people who bring too many carryons, or who take forever to get situated when we're already late and the plane still isn't loaded, or the people who spill things repeatedly, or can't stop farting, or take the window seat and close the window shade, or who don't think that the "turn off devices" thing applies to them, or who don't realize how rude it often is to fully recline ANY airline seat (even some of those in first class), or who etc., etc., etc.
I don't get upset or angry about any of it. Doing so doesn't make the situation better, first off. Secondly, you just never know what a person might be dealing with. . . . . . . .
I would just like to point out one other thing. Everyone has a sack of rocks to carry around. Or two or three sacks of rocks. Obesity is a visible sign of personal failing for many of us. The next time you feel squicked out by a fat person, at least try to imagine if one of your big personal failings was visible and obvious to everyone around you all the time. And know that even if you ARE working on it, the visible manifestion of that isn't going to go away or even be noticeably improved for the next how ever many months or years.
And know that you still have to hold your head up, function, not get down about it, cope...
It's pretty easy to say "just don't eat so much" but if you don't have that monkey on your back, you don't really know. People aren't perfect. They don't switch from bad to good habits in an instant. And they don't get immediate palpable benefits when they do switch.
Seriously, I'm an intelligent person. If my own studying of the issues, work with nutrionists and dieticians, years of daily exercise (well in excess of 2 hours a day on most days until I got injured twice in rapid succession and had to stop for what turned out to be way too long a period), super-strict adherence to WW, NutriSystem, Jenny Craig, and the Atkins diet (not all at once), the gut-slam of being diagnosed with diabetes, and the fear of pre-mature death from heart disease or stroke haven't MOTIVATED me enough to fix this problem, maybe more motivation from lack of social acceptance is going to put me over the top and lead to success?
It's something I need help with. I admit it. And so, my personal failing remains visible to the world as I struggle (yet again) to lose the excess weight. It's coming off at a rate of about one pound a moonth. At that rate, I should be of acceptable size to the rest of the world in about 8 years.
Shall I go hide until then? Never use a public conveyance? Apologize for my visible failing while secretly envying your ability to mask your failings?
Or just accept the situation and do what I can.
Maybe learn a little humility from it.
Be glad that my addiction is merely to food and not to other, worser things?
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
I've had the opportunity to fly on very little planes the past few years, planes that have 12-20 rows with one seat on one side of the isle and two seats on the other side. I've usually been able to pick the seat by itself and that is just wonderful. I get an isle, and a window, and no seatmates to worry about offending, all at once. Love it.
I just remembered some terrible fat etiquette, that I really disapproved of. I went to this modern dance show once that had extra narrow seats. I think they might have borrowed a high school auditorium for this particular performance. The lady next to me was very wide. She was with a female friend. I soon realized she was not sitting straight up, but firmly leaning in my direction. Our bodies were in contact from the shoulder down to the thigh, pretty much. She was leaning into me while completely ignoring me, while talking with her friend like nothing was wrong. She was leaning my way to avoid touching her friend. Rather than feel embarrassed about close physical contact with her friend, she chose to be embarrassed with a total stranger. She never did acknowledge my presence even once. It got so bad I was tempted to leave at intermission.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote:I would just like to point out one other thing. Everyone has a sack of rocks to carry around. Or two or three sacks of rocks. Obesity is a visible sign of personal failing for many of us. The next time you feel squicked out by a fat person, at least try to imagine if one of your big personal failings was visible and obvious to everyone around you all the time. And know that even if you ARE working on it, the visible manifestion of that isn't going to go away or even be noticeably improved for the next how ever many months or years.
And know that you still have to hold your head up, function, not get down about it, cope...
Just because it bears repeating and is an excellent quote. Very good, Bob.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I agree with Bob.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Shall I go hide until then? Never use a public conveyance? Apologize for my visible failing while secretly envying your ability to mask your failings?
Or just accept the situation and do what I can.
Maybe learn a little humility from it.
Be glad that my addiction is merely to food and not to other, worser things?
Werd. Alcoholism and drug abuse seem at least as rampant, far more damaging, and, bizarrely, celebrated as a national pasttime. I can think of worse vices than snacking, and more dangerous people than the overweight.
As a side note, I agree about the airline seats. Nobody over 5'8" or 120 lbs. seems to fit comfortably in the damn things -- and people blame fellow passengers for their discomfort?
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: and people blame fellow passengers for their discomfort?
I certainly blame people for exacerbating an already uncomfortable experience.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Rather than feel embarrassed about close physical contact with her friend, she chose to be embarrassed with a total stranger.
I have to admit that this does seem like a better choice to me. If I'm forced to choose to humiliate myself to someone while inconveniencing them, I figure that one of the perks of being my friend is that I'm less likely to do it to you.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'm actually intrigued by another question: IS there a stigma against the excessively thin? I know there's some jealousy, and I know people who are assumed to be bulimic are of course the subject of tongue-wagging, but I don't otherwise see it.
You don't see it because you aren't skinny. I was excessively thin for all of my childhood and most of my adult life because of an undiagnosed disease. I was openly mocked and ridiculed more than anyone I know who is over weight.
My disease was diagnosed about 7 years ago and I am now only normally thin.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I've noticed a stigma of anyone who's really thin is thought to have an eating disorder. This is just as prevalent as the preconception that all fat people are lazy, in my experience.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I was openly mocked and ridiculed more than anyone I know who is over weight.
I have to admit that I find this hard to believe. I mean, I can understand how it might be possible, but it's certainly been my experience and observation that even people who are on the verge of starvation -- the ones who are most likely to have their thinness be the subject of comment -- are generally assumed to be ill and suffering from something in a way that the obese are not.
I've seen a few thin people called a "beanpole" in my presence, and of course I've heard the whispered, semi-jealous speculation on whether or not Actress X is anorexic, but that's about the worst of it that I've seen.
If it's not too painful, could you elaborate more on the nature of your teasing? I've honestly never seen it, so I'm curious.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I've seen a few thin people called a "beanpole" in my presence, and of course I've heard the whispered, semi-jealous speculation on whether or not Actress X is anorexic, but that's about the worst of it that I've seen.
Being falsely accused of an eating disorder by your peers repeatedly over a long period of time is pretty damn hurtful, Tom, especially when those accusations are never directed at your face, but rather through gossip and speculation that never affords you an opportunity to defend yourself. Maybe that didn't happen where/when you went to school, but it definitely happens.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I can see how it would hurt, but I don't see how it hurts worse than the comments that come when someone is overweight.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
I've been at both ends of the spectrum. When I was a teenager and ill all the time, I was 30 pounds or so underweight. I had one person ask me if I was anorexic. No taunting, no name calling.
Being overweight in Canada, however, I got the taunting, the name calling, the jeering, the stares, the pig noises...
In my experience, overweight was by far - and still is - the worse experience. There is no comparison.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Perhaps worse than the taunting, name calling, jeering, etc, is being ignored and avoided.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:There is no comparison.
Not to you. But who are you to make a judgment on what is hurtful to other people? I knew a woman who was chronically underweight and struggled for years to put on weight. Doctors were baffled. It may have been a cause to her infertility, she rarely ovulated and her cycles were always messed up. Are you now going to claim that being oinked at is worth than the pain of never being able to realize your dream of being a mother?
We can't play the "my pain is worse than yours game" not unless you're absolutely certain of what the other person is experiencing and you can never be certain of that.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
quote:It's pretty easy to say "just don't eat so much" but if you don't have that monkey on your back, you don't really know. People aren't perfect. They don't switch from bad to good habits in an instant. And they don't get immediate palpable benefits when they do switch.
Yep, I totally agree. And I guess that's how I'm coming across, telling people "just don't eat so much". But I DO have this monkey on my back. Like I said, I've been struggling with this for over 2 years, ever since I learned what, specifically, I need to do to lose weight. And I've gone through the same roller coaster ride almost everyone goes through when they finally change their habits, the sudden joyous drops on the scale, the discouraging gains when I'd been doing everything right, the weeks and months where I chuck it all out the window and eat pizza for every meal. Believe me, I know.
But.... no matter how society feels about your weight, or how positive or negative your self-image is, or how much you tell yourself you're doing your best, the cold hard truth is that your body is going to continue to fall apart as long as you continue to carry the excess fat. And as sympathetic I am to people who struggle with it, I just can't get past the thought that, if they don't make these changes, they're going to be taken away from us far before their time.
One thing I wanted to ask of the folks who are really trying to lose weight, but not seeing any results: Do you know, specifically, how much you're eating in a day? At least the number of calories? And do you know how much you should be eating?
I ask because for me, that's been the most critical part of any weight-loss effort, knowing exactly what I'm eating and when I need to stop for the day. The moment I stop counting and start guessing, I start overeating. That's been a big part of accepting the "lifestyle change" that is eating healthy: realizing that, for me, I will need to keep track of my calorie intake for the rest of my life. Left to my own devices, I'll immediately start eating more food, more often.
So at the end of every day, I can tell you exactly how much I've eaten. Yesterday I had 1250 calories. The day before that was 1500. Today so far I've had 180, and for lunch I plan to have 300. Every time I sit down to eat, I have to add up the number of calories. Every time I want an extra snack, I have to think about whether or not it will push me over my range for the day.
And it sucks. But it's getting easier the more I practice. And I know that this is what it takes to keep myself from overeating and gaining weight, and I've decided that it's worth it to me.
If having to add up some numbers every time you put something in your mouth is the price to pay for health and long life.... wouldn't you make the same decision?
And if not, what can we say to convince you? Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I don't know that anybody's really looking for weight loss tips in this thread.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Thing is, it's not up to you to convince us. Not if we aren't asking for convincing.
That seems to be the point that is frequently lost - you (the generic nonspecific you) don't know what efforts are or are not being made. You don't know what else is going on in our lives. You don't know what other factors, including other health problems, might be getting in the way of losing weight. You don't know our emotional status. You don't know if we've been dieting and losing weight. You don't know what we eat - or don't - when you're not around.
You don't know.
Personally, I'd say butt out. Don't offer free advice. Don't assume that we're too stupid to be able to figure things out on our own. Don't assume that just because you've got a solution that works for you, that you therefore have the solution that will work for everyone else. Don't assume that it's any of your business. Don't assume that all we need is a little more shame or a little less dignity or a little more convincing.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
Okay.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Kat, I have been frequentely called an anorexic too when I was a teenager (not because I was skinny but really picky about what I ate and also hated to eat whith too many people around) and it really, really hurts. It damages your relationship with people badly when they think they are allowed to call you sick in your mind and ask you to eat this and that in front of them, if you're not anorexic. What do you mean, you don't want to? That's a proof, see. You're an anorexic in denial. And it lasted for friggin' years. I tried to tell them that an anorexic would never look like me for years, but it takes more energy to remove an idea from people's mind than to put it there in the first place. *sigh*
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Excellent post, Bob.
quote:At any rate, I always request an aisle seat. That way, as long as the cart is not being pushed up and down the aisle, I can lean that way and not disturb my neighbor. I've gotten quite adept at holding this uncomfortable position for hours at a time.
I do this too.
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: I don't know that anybody's really looking for weight loss tips in this thread.
Do I have to quote this again for emphasis, or will people get it with just once?
Seriously, do you honestly think that ANYONE who has posted in this thread doesn't know what you are saying? Really? How incredibly insulting if you do (considering the average level of both intelligence and education around here). And how incredibly insulting if you do not, and yet keep repeating the same damn things we hear all the time.
quid, very well put.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I've picked up some very good tips in this thread and am grateful for them.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
So have I, actually. *shamefaced* I completely agree with quidscribis, because condemning and offering advice to someone who hasn't asked for it generally takes a huge amount of presumption which is only possible because of the disrespect. That people think they do know better is a sign of the lack of respect.
I do not think that Zeugma was doing that, though. She didn't talk about mentally condemning people's character while sitting in on the subway like others do. We have been talking about what it takes to lose weight.
Though (as I equivocate madly), the last line was probably one too many. Still, the other stuff is worthwhile, I think.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
If you got some good tips, I think it's more of a case of your making the best of a tacky situation, rather than saying anything about the appropriateness of the "tips."
ETA: Zeugma's post wasn't bothering me, except the end reminded me that I wanted to point out that it's not a weight-loss tips thread, and even though I know threads tend to go off in all sorts of directions, nobody's really looking for tips. Come to think of it, I probably participated in some of that yesterday.
[ July 11, 2006, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: Katarain ]
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Several people have mentioned reasons that weight loss is extremely difficult for them, and used these reasons to justify why they were obese. It sounds like a lot of people here have the attitude that it is pretty much impossible for them to lose weight, so why bother trying.
Zeugma, coming from that position herself, has been attempting to give "tips" to show that even though its extremely difficult, its not impossible. She's trying to convince people that they can still do it, even with the obstacles they face, and she is giving advice for how to do so.
For this, she has been pounded on for offering unwanted and uneeded advice.
I think you guys are being overly harsh, and fairly rude.
Its the natural instinct to offer advice when someone clearly wants to do something, but hasn't yet, because they feel like its too difficult. Especially when you went through the same thing yourself!
In a thread about discriminating against smokers, imagine someone stating that it was impossible for them to stop smoking, for some given reasons, and so they have no choice but to be a smoker. Would it be rude for a former smoker to offer advice in dealing with the same obstacles they had to overcome to beat the smoking addiction?
I don't think it would be. I would think the smoker rude for jumping down the former smoker's throat for trying to be helpful.
[ July 11, 2006, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: Xavier ]
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Personally, I'd say butt out. Don't offer free advice. Don't assume that we're too stupid to be able to figure things out on our own. Don't assume that just because you've got a solution that works for you, that you therefore have the solution that will work for everyone else. Don't assume that it's any of your business. Don't assume that all we need is a little more shame or a little less dignity or a little more convincing.
Personally, I'd say try not to overreact. What's wrong with offering someone something that may help them and they may not know? I know it's unsolicited, and since I've seen very well how sensitive people are about their weight I surely don't offer if they don't ask, but I don't think it's fair to jump someone who, it seems, is just trying to be helpful.
So what if you know it? Congrats. I get told things I know at least three times a day. You know what I say? "Thanks." Then I move on. Not that big a deal, especially since I know the reason they're telling me those things is because, if I didn't know them, my life would be a little harder.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Tante, pH....I apologize. I got angry and responded very immaturely, there's no excuse for that. If you'd like I can delete my posts, or leave them, it's up to you.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I was openly mocked and ridiculed more than anyone I know who is over weight.
I have to admit that I find this hard to believe. I mean, I can understand how it might be possible, but it's certainly been my experience and observation that even people who are on the verge of starvation -- the ones who are most likely to have their thinness be the subject of comment -- are generally assumed to be ill and suffering from something in a way that the obese are not.
I've seen a few thin people called a "beanpole" in my presence, and of course I've heard the whispered, semi-jealous speculation on whether or not Actress X is anorexic, but that's about the worst of it that I've seen.
If it's not too painful, could you elaborate more on the nature of your teasing? I've honestly never seen it, so I'm curious.
Like I said before Tom, you don't see because you've never been skinny. Quite honestly, I have many women friends who were over weight and it was always considered taboo to say anything about weight in their presence. I was never given the same consideration, even when I was hospitalized for malnutrition, my over weight friends would joke about how skinny I was.
I've been called everthing from 'Bony' to 'chicken legs'. People joked about how I could hide behind a pencil, how if I turned sideways I'd disappear, how I could be blown over by a gentle breeze, carried away by a helium ballon, hang glide from a 1 dollar bat kite. ad nauseum. Then there was the joke about how I could wear my bra backwards and never notice the difference. I've forgotten most of the others about my complete lack of figure.
And what was worse than the all the jokes, was the out right hostility I got from many many women who were trying to loose weight.
I can understand that you don't see it. You want to be thinner so skinny jokes just don't seem hurtful to you.
Quite honestly, I've never seen a fat woman made fun of to her face ever. I have not seen a fat person teased about their weight since I was in elementary school. I can believe that I'm just not sensitive to the issue, just like you are not sensitive to jokes about being skinny.
Trust me, fat people are not the only ones who get made fun of for how they look.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
As a matter of fact it is my opinion that everyone, absolutely everyone has at least once been mocked for his appearance.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
You are probably right Anna. And it's a very good point. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ah. See, I just question the motivation of people who tease skinny people.
People who tease fat people do it because they're revolted. Do you think people tease skinny people for the same reason?
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
People tease people mostly because they like to tease. Other explanations come after.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
I'd just like to say skinny tall girls are hot and I don't get why anyone would tease them, I really don't.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I lost a good deal of weight doing what Zeugma does. And when my friends and relatives talk about their inability to lose weight, I suggest that because it worked for me and was the first thing that did. And losing weight made me happier and so if I can help people I care about to feel happier to, I would like to. I don't start the conversation, but if they mention how diet x fails or how they just can't lose the weight, I figure that it is then appropriate for me to share how I lost so much. I would not go up to my friend though and say, wow, you're fat, here's how I lost weight, you should too.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Hmm. I think a lot of teasing occurs because people want to tease someone, and anyone who is visibly different is an easy target. So while the teasing may be claiming to be revolted, I'm not sure it's the reason for the teasing. And visibly different applies to excessively skinny people, as well. Although I would be there's a dose of jealousy in there, too.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
ElJay, exactly what I think (except for the jealousy part).
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
quote: In a thread about discriminating against smokers, imagine someone stating that it was impossible for them to stop smoking, for some given reasons, and so they have no choice but to be a smoker. Would it be rude for a former smoker to offer advice in dealing with the same obstacles they had to overcome to beat the smoking addiction?
I want to point out that smoking and overeating aren't quite comparable in this situation. Smoking is bringing in a drug from the outside. People try it, people become addicted, their health suffers. Whereas food, you need it to *live*. Every meal is a battle between sustainance and an addiction, and things like exercise and nutrition and everthing that has to do with weight and sustainance bring in so many factors into the mix that there's no way being overweight is as simple as being a smoker.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote: Every meal is a battle between sustainance and an addiction, and things like exercise and nutrition and everthing that has to do with weight and sustainance bring in so many factors into the mix that there's no way being overweight is as simple as being a smoker.
I didn't claim it was. However, I don't see how the differences between them are significant when deciding when advice is, or is not, appropriate.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think a lot of teasing occurs because people want to tease someone, and anyone who is visibly different is an easy target.
THIS is true in grade school; in fact, I'd argue that in grade school, the teasing fat kids get and the teasing skinny kids get is roughly equivalent. This changes fairly rapidly as you get older, though.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
"This changes fairly rapidly as you get older, though."
Not in my experience, Tom. There are people I work with now who still function that way. If they're unhappy about something, they're looking for someone to take it out on, and it doesn't have to be at all related to the source of their unhappiness. Making a snide comment about someone else or repeating unflattering gossip serves to make them feel better about themselves.
Mind, the people I know who do this are jerks. But they certainly exist as adults.
Posted by Sharpie (Member # 482) on :
Erosomniac asks: "While I'm sympathetic to your situation, I think you need to re-read this thread, like I just did. I'm honestly having trouble figuring out what it was that's making you so upset."
Let's try this. My son's name is Chris.
Squicky says: "I don't hate Chris, but neither am I going to treat him like anyone else. Because he is different.
I find Chris unpleasant to look at. As someone who plays sports 4 or 5 days out of a week, I am less likely to be interested in developing a friendship with him. While this is by no means a set thing, I have found that the fat people I know tend to be lazier, mentally and physically, and less up for going out and doing things."
BaoQingTan: I'll be brutally honest, even if it's not very complimentary of myself. Although I don't hate Chris, I do find myself digusted at an almost subliminal level. I've come up with justifications for these feelings, but it's really all they are.
If I were single, there would be zero chance of me dating Chris. I'll probably be called shallow, but physical appearance is extremely important to me. Not just weight, but grooming and hygene. How Chris presents himself tells me a lot about him."
Lalo says: "I don't think it's victimization to say that being overweight is unhealthy, or even to infer sloth or gluttony when observing [Chris] -- at least, no more than it is to infer sloth when observing the consistently unwashed."
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
I've noticed that more than half the people who make comments about my weight, who point and laugh and visibly demean me in other ways are at least as large as I am - I may be fat, but I'm not nearly as fat as a lot of people - and/or are not what I would call anywhere near physically attractive. That has made me come to the conclusion that their motives have to do with making themselves feel better, and the only way they can find to do that is to make fun of someone else. They feel so badly about themselves that they only way they can feel better about themselves it to feel like they've made someone else feel even worse about themselves.
And the rest of them? The thin, good-looking ones who make comments? Well, I've noticed that a lot of people think that fat people are not just fat - they are morally and spiritually deficient, that being fat isn't a health problem, but a character failing. Basically, they think that being thin - just being thin - makes them superior to everyone else.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:This changes fairly rapidly as you get older, though.
Even on Hatrack I've seen comments about "Real women" having curves when referring to a skinny celebrity. I've seen more than one person here speak of people below a certain weight/body type as unnatural.
People don't like being told that they do have the time to eat better/exercise/whatever, but I've seen many comments here about having "better things to do" than exercising.
There's an almost palpable dislike and a fairly explicit set of negative judgments levied at people who are fit or underweight that surfaces predictably in certain kinds of threads here.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Sharpie, I found the comments you quoted (albeit revised) to be as distasteful as you did. They are certainly entitled to their opinions, as I am to mine regarding them.
Try not to let it get to you. There are a lot of people out there who don't base their friendships on appearance, and we're better off knowing these things right off. It is likely that both parties would find a friendship between two people with these fundamentally different philosophies mutually disagreeable, so why bother?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Even on Hatrack I've seen comments about "Real women" having curves when referring to a skinny celebrity.
The subtext here is that "real women" are not unnaturally perfect, and that "real" women shouldn't feel that they have to live up to an unreasonable standard. Frankly, I could cope with being mocked for being too perfect.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Except it's clear they're not "too perfect" to the people making the comment. They can be dismissed as irrelevant because they're not even real.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Actually, the images we see of the perfect, skinny celebrity are often NOT real. They are touched up in drastic ways. This is in magazines--I think it'd be quite hard to change things on camera.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Except it's clear they're not "too perfect" to the people making the comment.
I'm willing to speculate that there's about a 80% sour grapes component to that.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Even on Hatrack I've seen comments about "Real women" having curves when referring to a skinny celebrity.
The subtext here is that "real women" are not unnaturally perfect, and that "real" women shouldn't feel that they have to live up to an unreasonable standard. Frankly, I could cope with being mocked for being too perfect.
I may not be a woman, but even at 6'3" and 150 lbs -- just barely above "underweight," and as I said, I've been as low as 140 -- I like to think that I'm "real."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm sure you are. In fact, I'm saying the purpose of comments like "real women have curves" is to make people who are insecure about their curves feel better about them, not to make people who have no curves feel inadequate.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm willing to speculate that there's about a 80% sour grapes component to that.
I'm at a loss to see why that matters or makes the comments any more palatable.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm saying the purpose of comments like "real women have curves" is to make people who are insecure about their curves feel better about them, not to make people who have no curves feel inadequate.
And the people who tease "the fat kid" are trying to feel better about themselves.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: Okay, I'll get ready to defend my sexuality in three... two...
Lalo and TomDavidson sitting in a tree K.I.S.S.I.N.G First comes LOVE Then comes MARRIAGE Then comes a....a...ummm...hmmm...*off to childishly ponder what could possibly come next*
Well, somebody had to do it!! Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Squicky says: "I don't hate Chris, but neither am I going to treat him like anyone else. Because he is different.
I find Chris unpleasant to look at. As someone who plays sports 4 or 5 days out of a week, I am less likely to be interested in developing a friendship with him. While this is by no means a set thing, I have found that the fat people I know tend to be lazier, mentally and physically, and less up for going out and doing things."
BaoQingTan: I'll be brutally honest, even if it's not very complimentary of myself. Although I don't hate Chris, I do find myself digusted at an almost subliminal level. I've come up with justifications for these feelings, but it's really all they are.
If I were single, there would be zero chance of me dating Chris. I'll probably be called shallow, but physical appearance is extremely important to me. Not just weight, but grooming and hygene. How Chris presents himself tells me a lot about him."
Lalo says: "I don't think it's victimization to say that being overweight is unhealthy, or even to infer sloth or gluttony when observing [Chris] -- at least, no more than it is to infer sloth when observing the consistently unwashed."
I don't see where those comments are out of line.
I also don't see where anyone said they base their friendships on appearance.
quote:that being fat isn't a health problem, but a character failing.
In many, many cases, being obese is indicative of a character failing. There are plenty of cases where people's situation and/or medical status make it extremely difficult or even impossible for them not to be obese, but in the vast majority of cases, this is not so.
This doesn't make them inferior - as I said, one's weight and one's inability to control it is only one aspect of who a person is - but it does betray a personal weakness.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
quote:Frankly, I could cope with being mocked for being too perfect.
Well, Tom, just because you could, doesn't mean that the person being mocked doesn't feel real pain that hurts him or her just as much as it would hurt you to be mocked for being overweight.
This is a huge issue for me and it really hurts my feelings to be dismissed. I spent the majority of my life as a very skinny girl with a natrually large chest. I can assure you that the ridicule and discrimination that I endured was every bit as damaging as what an overweight person endured. When people see a woman who looks like I did, they think that she's stupid and promiscuous and shallow, because she obviously had plastic surgery. Not only that, but it's plain dangerous for a young girl to have a figure like mine - I quickly learned to wear clothes to hide my figure and to watch every single word I said to a boy or man. And I didn't dare complain, because most of my friends thought they wanted a figure like mine and would be furious and nasty if I said a word about it.
I'd be happy to take you through the years of torment I experienced and the self-doubt and self-loathing I felt before I grew up and learned to live with it if you care to wait until Aerin goes to sleep. Until then, you'll just have to take my word that even people with "perfect" figures have feeligs, too.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The modern day version of a Scarlet A?
I don't think it is a character failing. I think that it can be seen as a result of choices, but I don't think that working out is a virtue. I think it's good to do, but it's no more indicative of goodness than reading the Bible every day is indicative of goodness.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'm sure you are. In fact, I'm saying the purpose of comments like "real women have curves" is to make people who are insecure about their curves feel better about them, not to make people who have no curves feel inadequate.
I don't really think that makes it better.
Added: To be clear, what I'm saying is that there's no need to get into what amounts to a persecution complex pissing contest. A lot of different people have been mocked and teased for a lot of different things; belittling the teasing of others isn't constructive. While it might be fair to say that overweight people are mocked or teased more frequently for it than other people are teased for other reasons, I don't think it's useful to say that the teasing they suffer is inherently worse -- at least not without some sort of actual evidence to support the assertion.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:And the people who tease "the fat kid" are trying to feel better about themselves.
You know, I don't think this is the case. As has been noted on this thread, several people have said some astonishingly hurtful things out of a desire to be helpful.
quote:Until then, you'll just have to take my word that even people with "perfect" figures have feeligs, too.
And the rich have problems. That doesn't mean they're not problems I would gladly trade for.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The more I think about it, the more I'm sure that working out is not, by itself, a sign of character. For a lot of people, their motivation to work out is because they like the attention they get from the opposite sex. More power to them, but that's not something they should be praised for. Needing attention is not a great virtue.
Other people work out because they want to live longer for the sake of their families. That seems like a more worthy reason.
In other words, it isn't the action, it's the motivation behind the action. It is a good action nonetheless, but what it means about the actor depends on the reason they are doing it.
I think that people like to do what is rewarding to them. Everyone can benefit from exercise, but some people get onto the basketball court and there they are a star. Someone else works their tail off to be merely adaquete, but are amazing musicians. So, they play less basketball and practice music more, while the basketball player busts his chops to produce the base line to Louie Louie.*
Is the basketball player really more virtuous for playing more?
* Louie Louie being chosen because I can play the base line to it, which shows how little talent/work it takes.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You know, I don't think this is the case. As has been noted on this thread, several people have said some astonishingly hurtful things out of a desire to be helpful.
Which means they weren't teasing. They might still have been hurtful, but they weren't teasing.
quote:And the rich have problems. That doesn't mean they're not problems I would gladly trade for.
You seem to take quite a bit of affront at the notion that others don't understand what you go through due to your weight. Why not try to put some of that empathy you'd like to see into action yourself.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I also don't see where anyone said they base their friendships on appearance.
I think you did, when you said this:
quote:I don't hate fat people, but neither am I going to treat them like anyone else. Because they are different.
I find them unpleasant to look at. As someone who plays sports 4 or 5 days out of a week, I am less likely to be interested in developing a friendship with them.
I think you could make the argument that you're basing your friendships on the mutual love of physical activity, but since you are writing them off as potential friends simply by looking at them, I think it is immensely fair to say that you're basing your friendships on appearance.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:To be clear, what I'm saying is that there's no need to get into what amounts to a persecution complex pissing contest. A lot of different people have been mocked and teased for a lot of different things; belittling the teasing of others isn't constructive. While it might be fair to say that overweight people are mocked or teased more frequently for it than other people are teased for other reasons, I don't think it's useful to say that the teasing they suffer is inherently worse -- at least not without some sort of actual evidence to support the assertion.
I'm not trying to compare teasing. I am trying to say that the principles that people are invoking to decry some of the statements that have offended people in this thread are regularly violated in the other direction. If we want to make sure those principles are honored, we should attempt to do so evenhandedly.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
"Less likely to be interested in developing a friendship" does not equal "writing them off as potential friends."
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I never said that working out is a virtue.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Sharpie, to be blunt: you need to get over it. Replace fat, overweight or whatever applicable weight-related term with the equivilant to apply to Mormons, Christians, Scientologists, Satanists, Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, blacks, whites, rappers, people who live in trailer parks, homeless, the wealthy, single mothers, gays, divorcees, or fill in your own favorite demographic about which you hold a generalized negative stereotype.
quote:The subtext here is that "real women" are not unnaturally perfect, and that "real" women shouldn't feel that they have to live up to an unreasonable standard. Frankly, I could cope with being mocked for being too perfect.
Ok, so the people who are naturally skinny or have stereotypically "perfect" figures should be made to feel that they are the freaks, who are putting unnecessary social pressure on people heavier than them simply by existing?
Maybe I just really don't get it.
Edit: And in the time it's taken me to calm down enough to write this, there are dozens of other responses inbetween. Damn you, posting time!
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I'm not trying to compare teasing.
I haven't suggested that you are. Tom, however, is doing exactly that.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: "Less likely to be interested in developing a friendship" does not equal "writing them off as potential friends."
Frankly, the difference between the two means little, at least to me. In fact, the first one implies a testing period, where MrSquicky determines whether or not the fat person is worthy of his friendship. At least the second interpretation makes his requirements clear.
And I suppose that it might be suggested that all of us have a testing period, usually casual, where we decide whether or not to be friends. I would just suggest that *I* find some criteria for this testing to be more worthy than others. MrSquicky is certainly free to think whatever he chooses, and I am am free to think less of him for it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Not saying you were, twinky. Just clarifying my position. Sorry I didn't make that clear in the previous post.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Frankly, the difference between the two means little, at least to me.
The first doesn't necessarily imply conscious use of the factor in selection. The second definitely does. That's a huge difference.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
It's not okay to put down skinny people or fat people.
There is one time in my life that I distinctly remember being called fat in an unkind way. And I totally deserved it. I was in high school, and I was making some teasing comments about a classmate about his being short--when others were also engaged in teasing him about the same thing at the same time. He retorted with a comment about my weight. I _immediately_ understood that what I was saying to him was hurtful, and I could certainly not hold what he said about me against him. I watched what I said a lot more carefully after that.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Not saying you were, twinky. Just clarifying my position. Sorry I didn't make that clear in the previous post.
No worries. I didn't really think so, I just wanted to make sure.
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
quote:Sharpie, to be blunt: you need to get over it. Replace fat, overweight or whatever applicable weight-related term with the equivilant to apply to Mormons, Christians, Scientologists, Satanists, Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, blacks, whites, rappers, people who live in trailer parks, homeless, the wealthy, single mothers, gays, divorcees, or fill in your own favorite demographic about which you hold a generalized negative stereotype.
Didn't you mean to write:
"Sharpie, to be blunt: you need to get over it. Replace fat, overweight or whatever applicable weight-related term with the equivilant to apply to Mormons, Christians, Scientologists, Satanists, Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, blacks, whites, rappers, people who live in trailer parks, homeless, the wealthy, single mothers, gays, divorcees, or fill in your own favorite demographic about which I hold a generalized negative stereotype."
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think people are getting heated.
There is NOTHING to indicate that the person who wrote that statement to Sharpie thinks badly of the groups listed, and I think it's very unfair to imply that they do.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Didn't you mean to write:
No, although it's pretty telling that you would fill that in for me.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Frankly, the difference between the two means little, at least to me.
The first doesn't necessarily imply conscious use of the factor in selection. The second definitely does. That's a huge difference.
Perhaps I should have clarified that the difference in the phrases doesn't change how I feel about the statement. I still find it disagreeable in a very basic way. It could be because it was preceded and followed with other things I found to be intensely disagreeable.
Honestly, I can't take issue with what he said in an argumentative way. It is the way he feels, and he's entitled to feel that way. I just find it sad (and at times infuriating) that there are people who honestly think like that. I do find it shallow. Perhaps what bothers me most is that he felt free to share it with the world. It seems to me that thoughts and opinions like that should be hidden away, and the person harboring the thoughts should have the decency to feel ashamed about it, even if they can't change it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I think you could make the argument that you're basing your friendships on the mutual love of physical activity, but since you are writing them off as potential friends simply by looking at them, I think it is immensely fair to say that you're basing your friendships on appearance.
Except I'm not writing them off as friends.
Often, when I make a decision, say, to pursue a friendship with someone, I base it on many different factors that may have positive or negative impacts. To me, someone being obese has a negative impact on whether I'm going to try to become friends with them. This is not to say that they may not have a whole mess of positive traits. It's just one aspect of who they are, but it is one I consider a negative.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:It seems to me that thoughts and opinions like that should be hidden away, and the person harboring the thoughts should have the decency to feel ashamed about it, even if they can't change it.
There are a lot of thoughts and opinions like that on Hatrack. Not too many people shut up about them though, and most of them are much more deliberately confrontational than BQT's posts.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:I think you could make the argument that you're basing your friendships on the mutual love of physical activity, but since you are writing them off as potential friends simply by looking at them, I think it is immensely fair to say that you're basing your friendships on appearance.
Except I'm not writing them off as friends.
Often, when I make a decision, say, to pursue a friendship with someone, I base it on many different factors that may have positive or negative impacts. To me, someone being obese has a negative impact on whether I'm going to try to become friends with them. This is not to say that they may not have a whole mess of positive traits. It's just one aspect of who they are, but it is one I consider a negative.
Well, that doesn't sound as bad. I mean... I really can understand that you want to have friends who are active, but do you really need to outline potential friends' qualities in negative or positive categories? Couldn't you instead let it all happen naturally--and be friends with the people who are interested in going out places with you? Perhaps instead of saying you are less likely to be friends with fat people, you could say I don't have many fat friends because we aren't often in the same sorts of situations, since I'm an active guy... Or something like that.
Maybe the difference doesn't mean much, but it might make it sound a little less offensive/shallow/mean/whatever.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I'm not MrSquicky, but I'm willing to be that the process he describes is at least partly unconscious.
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
Whoa. I no more meant that eros held generalized prejudicial views of any of those groups (let alone all of them), than he did of Sharpie when he wrote "or fill in your own favorite demographic about which you hold a generalized negative stereotype."
I suppose you will say that "you" was a generalized "you" -- but that is exactly the problem with some of the thinking on this thread.
I share Sharpie's surprise that so many of you (a) readily ascribe inferior character (sloth, willful ignorance, gluttony) to overweight people, (b) admit it, and (c) justify it six ways from Sunday by saying it is true of most fat people (who says?) or that it is self-evident (who would choose to be fat if they had the willpower to avoid it?).
That eros equates these attitudes to attitudes of people who generalize their hate or fear of other "stereotypes" only reinforces my point.
edit: typo Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
(Maybe I shouldn't be so surprised at (b), above -- it is cool that Hatrack consistently allows people to speak their minds in a fair forum.)
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
All of this discussion about being less likely to being friends with fat people makes me think about my own inclinations. I will admit that the disparaging thoughts have entered my mind when encountering fat or simply unattractive people. I try to make them as short of thoughts as possible, and it doesn't happen all the time. In fact, it seems to be correlated to people having a certain manner of dress and neatness about them, which I am more attracted to on a base level.
It is not something that I ultimately judge people on, I make a conscious decision to judge people on their own behavior. But I will admit that the thoughts, albeit fleeting, are there. But I try to get past that. (I often think it is incredibly ironic, considering I am a larger woman myself.)
But what I find incredibly interesting is how much attitude and dress and manner has to do with people's perceptions of you. There is a woman in my office who is quite large--but she does not act like it. In fact, it is a surprising thing to think of her in that way. She is bubbly and loudly converses and wears clothing that is just the right amount of loud (bright colors, etc.). She has a great amount of presence, and it has all to do with her personality, and I would be surprised if people who know her would describe her as a large woman. It's so far apart from what she is and presents herself as.
But I would venture that I am seen in a completely different way. I bet my size is one of the first things people would think of to describe me, even though I'm smaller than this other woman. I think it has a lot to do with the different way that I act, and the more "frumpy" way of dressing. (I need to get some new clothes, but they're expensive.)
So fat isn't the end all be all of friendships. I would even venture that MrSquicky would have no hesitation whatsoever to be friends with the woman in my office--he'd probably even be surprised to remember her size.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Perhaps instead of saying you are less likely to be friends with fat people, you could say I don't have many fat friends because we aren't often in the same sorts of situations, since I'm an active guy.
That's not true though. I meet lots of people of all different types in many different situations. And I'm a friendly guy. I'm also self-aware enough to realize that when I meet people, I'm evaluating them on a set of standards and make the decision about whether or not I'm going to put effort into seeing them again based on how they measure up. On that set, being fat is a mild negative. Being obese is a stronger negative.
Some of the underlying traits that are found in many (but by no means all) fat (or especially) obese people are, however, so negative as to pretty much be deal breakers. Ultimately, I'm a great deal more put off by mental obesity (a characteristic that is neither possessed by all obese people nor absent from non-obese ones) than I am by physical obesity.
---
I don't believe that the way our society in general treats fat people is at all fair. I don't hold with mean-spirited ridicule at all. But on the other hand, I don't like it when people deny responsiblity for their choices or say that it's wrong to view being fat/obese as an undesirable thing.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Sad that MrSquickly is unlikely to consider me worthy of friendship as I have often found him admirable.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Whoa. I no more meant that eros held generalized prejudicial views of any of those groups (let alone all of them), than he did of Sharpie when he wrote "or fill in your own favorite demographic about which you hold a generalized negative stereotype."
I suppose you will say that "you" was a generalized "you" -- but that is exactly the poroblem with some of the thinking on this thread.
No, I meant exactly what I said, and I meant Sharpie specifically: everyone is guilty of participating, consciously or unconsciously, in pandering to negative stereotypes (read: ANY stereotypes). I maintain that anyone who claims otherwise is kidding themselves or flat out lying.
quote:I share Sharpie's surprise that so many of you (a) readily ascribe inferior character (sloth, willful ignorance, gluttony) to overweight people, (b) admit it, and (c) justify it six ways from Sunday by saying it is true of most fat people (who says?) or that it is self-evident (who would choose to be fat if they had the willpower to avoid it?).
Generalizations are just that: generalizations. Using them creates problems, but how do you avoid ever using any? Even the act of avoiding the use of generalizations requires acknowledging them.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Sad that MrSquickly is unlikely to consider me worthy of friendship as I have often found him admirable.
See. I don't deserve that, but even expressing the opinion that being fat is something I see as undesirable apparently makes me into someone who hates fat people and can't see any other aspects to them, no matter how many times I contradict this.
The thinking needs to change on all sides.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:I think you could make the argument that you're basing your friendships on the mutual love of physical activity, but since you are writing them off as potential friends simply by looking at them, I think it is immensely fair to say that you're basing your friendships on appearance.
Except I'm not writing them off as friends.
Often, when I make a decision, say, to pursue a friendship with someone, I base it on many different factors that may have positive or negative impacts. To me, someone being obese has a negative impact on whether I'm going to try to become friends with them. This is not to say that they may not have a whole mess of positive traits. It's just one aspect of who they are, but it is one I consider a negative.
I can more or less agree with that. But to qualify things I have had MANY overweights friends of various extremities my entire life. I do not see obesity as a positive trait (I do not know of anyone who would say its desireable) and its not simply different. To me its the result of usually poor decision making. When I turned 21 my metabolism suddenly started slowing down and I gained about 40 lbs. I have a little gut now, and I personally do not think it adds to the image I project to others or to myself. I certainly thought I was too skinny for my 6'5 frame when I was 155, but I think now I am alittle over my ideal weight.
I have forced myself to eat just alittle differently and I am going to get on an exercise routine. Being alittle overweigh is not that bad, but being so badly out of shape is a real problem to me.
My fiance and I checked our blood pressure and I was still well within fine, she however had DANGEROUSLY high blood pressure.
I am saddened that overweight people are often the bunt of jokes and other forms of redicule. It was hard for me to see my younger brother endure hell for several years because he is excessively fat, excessively vocal of his opinions, excessively insensitive, and excessively loud when he speaks. But society I have found is perfectly willing to poke fun at all forms of excess. People who are intentionally ignorant are made fun of all the time. People who work too much are looked at as uptight. We laugh at the excessively lazy. If you want to laugh at the excessively wealthy and endulgent watch that show, "Sweet 16."
Watching that show makes me want chew shards of glass.
It might be just me but I have yet to see a fat person excercise and eat their way back to a healthy situation and regret doing so. I feel empathy for those who have been dealt a difficult hand in this regard. People are not born equal. Before I turned 21 I could eat whatever I wanted and I still remained skinny, my brother could eat the exact same thing (although his candy/icecream intake was certainly higher than mine) and he would gain weight.
I've yet to decide not to be friendly or even friends with a person because of their weight. But if they complain to me that their weight has caused them any sort of grief, my response is always the same, "You would be better off if you made some lifestyle changes."
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
And how do you think the thinking needs to change on your side?
Posted by Sharpie (Member # 482) on :
But what is the solution to the problem of generalization? Personalization? Education?
When some of us try to make it personal -- when I say, wait, you can't talk about "fat people" like that, because there is no such person as HypotheticalRevoltingFatPerson, there is person A, and B, and my beloved child Chris, who all have different lives and goals and issues and strengths, the response seems to be "well, everyone has stereotypes." Eh? If I thought I knew anything, it was that saying something was a stereotype was NOT a defense.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
That's not quite what I meant. The way our society views obese people needs to change, but so does the way many obese people view themselves and others.
---
Also, I judge people. Everyone judges people and the standards and methods we use are far from perfect. I try, as best as I am able, to avoid many of the common traps of judging (like, for example, not admitting that you judge) and make as fair judgements as I can. As part of this, I try to understand the criteria that I use for these mostly sub-conscious judgements. I try to remain open to new interpretations.
edit: Sharpie, again, I don't judge people solely based on their weight. I do, however, factor it into my decisions. Of course, I also include information, if I have it, about their attempts to control their weight. I may make serious mistakes in judging people, but as I can see it, the alternative is to not judge at all, which I don't see as tenable. I try to be as fair as possible and to be open to alternative views. Other than that, I don't see what I could do.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Sad that MrSquickly is unlikely to consider me worthy of friendship as I have often found him admirable.
See. I don't deserve that, but even expressing the opinion that being fat is something I see as undesirable apparently makes me into someone who hates fat people and can't see any other aspects to them, no matter how many times I contradict this.
The thinking needs to change on all sides.
Perhaps I didn't make clear that I was not being sarcastic. If anything, you should take that as a compliment. I do think that you are an admirable person - you write really well and have a lot of opinions that I find worthwhile - even on the rare occasion that I don't agree with them. You are someone whose friendship I would likely value, should I ever meet you.
So it makes me sad that, because I am overweight, that you would be unlikely to value mine. Not suggesting that you should change your opinion, rather regretting that something I consider to be a minor fault in myself should have such consequences.
quote: I don't hate fat people, but neither am I going to treat them like anyone else. Because they are different.
I find them unpleasant to look at. As someone who plays sports 4 or 5 days out of a week, I am less likely to be interested in developing a friendship with them. While this is by no means a set thing, I have found that the fat people I know tend to be lazier, mentally and physically, and less up for going out and doing things. Also, I don't like listening to people tell me how hard it is to watch what they eat and exercise for 30 minutes a day, 5 days a week.
This is not to say that I shun fat people, nor do I heap scorn on them. But I see being fat, in many cases, as less attractive in itself and often indicative of underlying things that I also find less attractive. It's much the same as with smokers. I don't date and am less likely to develop friendships with either. If I were looking to hire someone for a job and two candidates had equal credentials, I'd give the job to the person who wasn't fat or didn't smoke. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
I feel no need to avoid generalizing lies about overweight people when I am with Sharpie's son Chris, because his nature is so clear to me.
Just like anyone I get to know, he is a whole person to me, and I feel no inclination to fill in the blanks with derogatory generalized labels that I may have absorbed from goodness knows where.
I carry lessons like this forward with me, so that as I encounter people of every shape, color, etc., I am increasingly ready to recognize and appreciate their good qualities, potential, uniqueness, skills, superiority, etc.
I don't deny that I engage in stereotypical thinking -- but unlike some, I do keep trying to 'get over it.'
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Ok, so the people who are naturally skinny or have stereotypically "perfect" figures should be made to feel that they are the freaks, who are putting unnecessary social pressure on people heavier than them simply by existing?
Didn't say that. But I submit that there is a qualitative difference between criticism (even sophomoric criticism) intended to level a playing field versus criticism designed to further insult someone who's already down. Compare reactions to the word "n****r" to reactions to the word "h****y," just as an example.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Can you give me another clue as to what the word "h****y" is?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote: When some of us try to make it personal -- when I say, wait, you can't talk about "fat people" like that, because there is no such person as HypotheticalRevoltingFatPerson, there is person A, and B, and my beloved child Chris, who all have different lives and goals and issues and strengths, the response seems to be "well, everyone has stereotypes." Eh? If I thought I knew anything, it was that saying something was a stereotype was NOT a defense.
Let's try this another way.
Terrorists have a stereotype. There are inevitably exceptions. I'm willing to bet that you view them as HypotheticalTerrorists, rather than, say, man-whose-home-was-raided-and-torn-apart-by-American-soldiers-who-now-hates-America and kid-whose-entire-family-was-murdered-by-Armenians-who-grew-up-indoctrinated-so-it's-not-his-fault, and they're all someone's beloved sons. Can you honestly tell me you intellectualize all the people you see/meet/interact with this way? How do you have time to do anything else?
That's all I'm going to say on this. I find it mind boggling that you don't understand what I'm talking about, and the necessity of using generalizations in every day life.
Edit to add:
quote: I don't deny that I engage in stereotypical thinking -- but unlike some, I do keep trying to 'get over it.'
Maybe I need to add that it's always worth striving to replace stereotypes about the people you meet with conclusions drawn from the way they really are. My bad, I assumed this was a pretty "NO FREAKIN' DUH" point.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
mph: rhymes with donkey
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Didn't say that. But I submit that there is a qualitative difference between criticism (even sophomoric criticism) intended to level a playing field versus criticism designed to further insult someone who's already down. Compare reactions to the word "n****r" to reactions to the word "h****y," just as an example.
Fair enough. I strongly disagree: I don't think you can qualify suffering, and attempting to do so is why we end up with parents who use lines like "There are starving children in Africa, so eat your food!"
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I'm willing to bet that the world would be a much better place if we all tried to avoid using such generalizations.
Imagine how different we would be if we internalized this:
quote: man-whose-home-was-raided-and-torn-apart-by-American-soldiers-who-now-hates-America and kid-whose-entire-family-was-murdered-by-Armenians-who-grew-up-indoctrinated-so-it's-not-his-fault, and they're all someone's beloved sons.
We should all try harder to do that.
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
quote: I didn't claim it was. However, I don't see how the differences between them are significant when deciding when advice is, or is not, appropriate.
I was trying to say that advice in the weight case probably won't be taken as well because there are infinitely more variables in their individual case than in a smoker's, where the most differences could be smoking to deal with deeper psychological issues which, obviously, vary. And with weight, there are all sorts on environmental, physical, and psycological factors that should be addressed by physicians Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
KMB, I don't think anyone is denying that we should all try to do that. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I just got excited about the idea. I mean...wow. Wouldn't that be cool!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:We should all try harder to do that.
Except that each of your long names is simply a different kind of stereotype, assuming you're not talking about known individuals. I'm not sure what that gets us.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It's remembering that there are human beings behind the stereotypes that are just as real and complicated and everything else as we are.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
It gets us a little closer to understanding the motivations of the hypothetical terrorist. Not all the way, not even close, but every little bit helps.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Except that each of your long names is simply a different kind of stereotype, assuming you're not talking about known individuals. I'm not sure what that gets us.
Me neither. Hence why I don't think of "overweight people" as "someone's-beloved-son-who's-tried-all-kinds-of-standard-treatment-for-obesity-and-isn't-having-any-success-so-it's-not-his-fault." Edit to add: I allow for the possibility that this (or any number of other legitimate reasons for being overweight) could be the case, but I find it a waste of time to attempt to humanize unindentified individuals in a group.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
This might be a bit dated, but I've wanted to post this since I discovered this thread:
quote: Being thin. Probably not a subject that you ever expected to read about on this website, but my recent trip to London got me thinking...
It started in the car on the way to Leavesden film studios. I whiled away part of the journey reading a magazine that featured several glossy photographs of a very young woman who is either seriously ill or suffering from an eating disorder (which is, of course, the same thing); anyway, there is no other explanation for the shape of her body. She can talk about eating absolutely loads, being terribly busy and having the world's fastest metabolism until her tongue drops off (hooray! Another couple of ounces gone!), but her concave stomach, protruding ribs and stick-like arms tell a different story. This girl needs help, but, the world being what it is, they're sticking her on magazine covers instead. All this passed through my mind as I read the interview, then I threw the horrible thing aside.
But blow me down if the subject of girls and thinness didn't crop up shortly after I got out of the car. I was talking to one of the actors and, somehow or other, we got onto the subject of a girl he knows (not any of the Potter actresses – somebody from his life beyond the films) who had been dubbed 'fat' by certain charming classmates. (Could they possibly be jealous that she knows the boy in question? Surely not!)
'But,' said the actor, in honest perplexity, 'she is really not fat.'
'"Fat" is usually the first insult a girl throws at another girl when she wants to hurt her,' I said; I could remember it happening when I was at school, and witnessing it among the teenagers I used to teach. Nevertheless, I could see that to him, a well-adjusted male, it was utterly bizarre behaviour, like yelling 'thicko!' at Stephen Hawking.
His bemusement at this everyday feature of female existence reminded me how strange and sick the 'fat' insult is. I mean, is 'fat' really the worst thing a human being can be? Is 'fat' worse than 'vindictive', 'jealous', 'shallow', 'vain', 'boring' or 'cruel'? Not to me; but then, you might retort, what do I know about the pressure to be skinny? I'm not in the business of being judged on my looks, what with being a writer and earning my living by using my brain...
I went to the British Book Awards that evening. After the award ceremony I bumped into a woman I hadn't seen for nearly three years. The first thing she said to me? 'You've lost a lot of weight since the last time I saw you!'
'Well,' I said, slightly nonplussed, 'the last time you saw me I'd just had a baby.'
What I felt like saying was, 'I've produced my third child and my sixth novel since I last saw you. Aren't either of those things more important, more interesting, than my size?' But no – my waist looked smaller! Forget the kid and the book: finally, something to celebrate!
So the issue of size and women was (ha, ha) weighing on my mind as I flew home to Edinburgh the next day. Once up in the air, I opened a newspaper and my eyes fell, immediately, on an article about the pop star Pink.
Her latest single, 'Stupid Girls', is the antidote-anthem for everything I had been thinking about women and thinness. 'Stupid Girls' satirises the talking toothpicks held up to girls as role models: those celebrities whose greatest achievement is un-chipped nail polish, whose only aspiration seems to be getting photographed in a different outfit nine times a day, whose only function in the world appears to be supporting the trade in overpriced handbags and rat-sized dogs.
Maybe all this seems funny, or trivial, but it's really not. It's about what girls want to be, what they're told they should be, and how they feel about who they are. I've got two daughters who will have to make their way in this skinny-obsessed world, and it worries me, because I don't want them to be empty-headed, self-obsessed, emaciated clones; I'd rather they were independent, interesting, idealistic, kind, opinionated, original, funny – a thousand things, before 'thin'. And frankly, I'd rather they didn't give a gust of stinking chihuahua flatulence whether the woman standing next to them has fleshier knees than they do. Let my girls be Hermiones, rather than Pansy Parkinsons. Let them never be Stupid Girls. Rant over.
--J.K. Rowling (Once again proving that I can't imagine the world without comparing it to Harry Potter in some way).
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Maybe all this seems funny, or trivial, but it's really not. It's about what girls want to be, what they're told they should be, and how they feel about who they are. I've got two daughters who will have to make their way in this skinny-obsessed world, and it worries me, because I don't want them to be empty-headed, self-obsessed, emaciated clones; I'd rather they were independent, interesting, idealistic, kind, opinionated, original, funny – a thousand things, before 'thin'. And frankly, I'd rather they didn't give a gust of stinking chihuahua flatulence whether the woman standing next to them has fleshier knees than they do. Let my girls be Hermiones, rather than Pansy Parkinsons. Let them never be Stupid Girls. Rant over.
I love her.
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
quote:Maybe I need to add that it's always worth striving to replace stereotypes about the people you meet with conclusions drawn from the way they really are. My bad, I assumed this was a pretty "NO FREAKIN' DUH" point.
Not at all. Especially when someone pretty much rants at you to "replace stereotypes about the people you meet with conclusions drawn from the way people really are", and your response is "get over it."
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
That's the only thing I've ever read by Rowling. I'm impressed. Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Let my girls be Hermiones, rather than Pansy Parkinsons.
See, I've always pictured Hermione as the smart-but-uncute girl who gives up and conforms to society's expectations in book 4 by using magic to straighten her teeth, pretty herself up, and whatnot (at which point she is finally acknowledged by all the boys as attractive).
I've always pictured Pansy Parkinson as hideously ugly. I can't remember if there's actual description contradicting this but if there is, I ignored it.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Not at all. Especially when someone pretty much rants at you to "replace stereotypes about the people you meet with conclusions drawn from the way people really are", and your response is "get over it."
No, Sharpie wasn't asking us to replace stereotypes about the people we meet, she was asking us to replace stereotypes for her son because her son is different, and to not use stereotypes, period.
To that, my response is "get over it."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It's remembering that there are human beings behind the stereotypes that are just as real and complicated and everything else as we are.
But it's remembering via falsehood, at least to the extent all stereotypes are falsehood.
quote:It gets us a little closer to understanding the motivations of the hypothetical terrorist. Not all the way, not even close, but every little bit helps.
I'm not sure it does. It's a made up story about the motivation of a particular terrorist. (Again, I'm assuming we don't know that the person being referred to fits either description.)
It also carries the grave danger that such motivations will be supplied from our perspective and culture.
It's one thing to think of reasons an insurgent might oppose us. It's another to apply these reasons as names to people whose stories we don't know.
We can be pretty sure that there's at least one terrorist who matches each of those stories. But there's also at least one who joined the insurgency to indulge a preference for violence.
quote:I don't want them to be empty-headed, self-obsessed, emaciated clones
And speaking of stereotypes about thin people. Why does anyone love this? Would someone love a sentence starting, "I don't want my daughters to grow up to be slothful, self-ignoring..."
I'm not quite sure why Hermione's brains are incompatible with a particular look.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Errr...I don't think anyone here is advocating forming an impression of someone and then never looking beyond that impression.
Part of the problem I have with the way this idea is often presented, though, is that it often boils down to "listen to people's excuses for their faults." The self-stories that people tell often don't match up with reality. Even when they do, one's that cast the person in the role of a passive victim are much less interesting to me than one's that don't.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Dagonee, I'm not being clear. It isn't about guessing which group of labels to assign. It is remembering that each of us (fat or terrorist) can't be summed up by "fat" or "terrorist". That our stories are more complicated and that we don't know what those stories are. That we can't assume motivation and write people off thinking that we know all we need to know from reading the label.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:That we can't assume motivation and write people off thinking that we know all we need to know from reading the label.
Who here is saying we should do that?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Nobody. It is something that we do, though. I just got excited about the idea of not doing it. Although someone (can't find who) did suggest that the world would stop if we didn't.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dagonee, I'm not being clear. It isn't about guessing which group of labels to assign. It is remembering that each of us (fat or terrorist) can't be summed up by "fat" or "terrorist". That our stories are more complicated and that we don't know what those stories are. That we can't assume motivation and write people off thinking that we know all we need to know from reading the label.
OK - I like that goal. It's not quite what I got from the original post on the subject, so thank you for the clarification.
I do think there's a tendency to erroneously treat acknowledgment of a single attribute as labeling - that is, to think that if a speaker says one thing about a person then that speaker has spoken comprehensively on that person. It's usually not the case in my experience.
Posted by Sharpie (Member # 482) on :
Eros, you really interpreted my post/s that way?
In case anyone else did: No, I was saying that the stranger you are repulsed by, that you judge, is not some cardboard character. Replace the words "fat person" with anybody's name.
"No offense, but I just don't like that kind of person; it's just the way I am." This kind of thinking dehumanizes people (including the speaker), and for a lot of us it dehumanizes people we care about a lot. I think that kind of statement should be countered every time we encounter it. We should be outraged and offended, and we should express it. I definitely don't think I should "get over it." That way leads to ignorance and narrow-mindedness.
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
quote:
quote:
quote:Maybe I need to add that it's always worth striving to replace stereotypes about the people you meet with conclusions drawn from the way they really are. My bad, I assumed this was a pretty "NO FREAKIN' DUH" point.
Not at all. Especially when someone pretty much rants at you to "replace stereotypes about the people you meet with conclusions drawn from the way people really are", and your response is "get over it."
No, Sharpie wasn't asking us to replace stereotypes about the people we meet, she was asking us to replace stereotypes for her son because her son is different, and to not use stereotypes, period.
Given your NO DUH point of "it's always worth striving to replace stereotypes" I'm not sure why you now object to someone suggesting "to not use stereotypes."
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:I whiled away part of the journey reading a magazine that featured several glossy photographs of a very young woman who is either seriously ill or suffering from an eating disorder (which is, of course, the same thing); anyway, there is no other explanation for the shape of her body. She can talk about eating absolutely loads, being terribly busy and having the world's fastest metabolism until her tongue drops off (hooray! Another couple of ounces gone!), but her concave stomach, protruding ribs and stick-like arms tell a different story. This girl needs help...
My ribs protrude and my arms are certainly not thick. The implication (since I'm male) that I must therefore have some sort of eating disorder is pretty insulting. And, as Dagonee notes, she takes it even further. Given that we just talked about this a page or two ago, I'm surprised to see people heaping praise on Rowling.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: (Again, I'm assuming we don't know that the person being referred to fits either description.)
Okay. I made the reverse assumption -- that is, that we know the description is accurate. The idea is that you update your impression of someone as you learn more about them, which is something I think most people do.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I also advocate, when we have to guess, guessing the one that give the benefit of the doubt.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The idea is that you update your impression of someone as you learn more about them, which is something I think most people do.
I totally agree with this.
I once tried to write a story about a society where no person could be referred to by anything but their name or by a formal temporary naming of the person when identity is unknown. The idea was that all description dehumanized (not something I subscribe to, but I do believe that much language that refers to people dehumanizes). Too cumbersome to pull off, though.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by John Van Pelt:
quote:
quote:
quote:Maybe I need to add that it's always worth striving to replace stereotypes about the people you meet with conclusions drawn from the way they really are. My bad, I assumed this was a pretty "NO FREAKIN' DUH" point.
Not at all. Especially when someone pretty much rants at you to "replace stereotypes about the people you meet with conclusions drawn from the way people really are", and your response is "get over it."
No, Sharpie wasn't asking us to replace stereotypes about the people we meet, she was asking us to replace stereotypes for her son because her son is different, and to not use stereotypes, period.
Given your NO DUH point of "it's always worth striving to replace stereotypes" I'm not sure why you now object to someone suggesting "to not use stereotypes."
Holy...seriously, re-read my post(s). You're leaving out some pretty important words.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Errr...I don't think anyone here is advocating forming an impression of someone and then never looking beyond that impression.
No...but you did give (at least me) the idea that looking beyond that first impression would be difficult or unlikely for you. Again, I am not saying that you should change. And it is good that you are honest about it. I imagine the honesty leads to much less deeply hurt feelings.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:I also advocate, when we have to guess, guessing the one that give the benefit of the doubt.
I'd rather go with the odds when I have to guess. I reserve the benefit of the doubt for people I know well enough to extend it to.
Otherwise I'd have to empty my pockets to winos and panhandlers everyday. Some of whom no doubt really do want to spend the money on food. The majority, though, run right to the liquor store.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sharpie: Eros, you really interpreted my post/s that way?
In case anyone else did: No, I was saying that the stranger you are repulsed by, that you judge, is not some cardboard character. Replace the words "fat person" with anybody's name.
Right, and I'm saying that yes, they are just a cardboard character until proven otherwise, and I'm pointing out that you think that way as well, because everyone does.
Edit to add: leaving the office now, I'm not ignoring you.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Is it really so tough and time consuming to remind yourself that, even though you don't know all the dimensions, there are dimensions?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:I also advocate, when we have to guess, guessing the one that give the benefit of the doubt.
I'd rather go with the odds when I have to guess. I reserve the benefit of the doubt for people I know well enough to extend it to.
Otherwise I'd have to empty my pockets to winos and panhandlers everyday. Some of whom no doubt really do want to spend the money on food. The majority, though, run right to the liquor store.
There is a difference between giving someone the benefit of the doubt, and acting in a way that is detrimental to your own well-being.
Also, while you may be correct more often than someone who gives them the money (or, better, buys them a sandwich, or keeps meal-replacement bars with them to give to such people), I don't happen to feel that "being right most often" is all that admirable a character trait when compared to "being generous." (Mind, I lean more toward the former than the latter; I just don't think it's a good thing. And it is something about myself that I'm working on.)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Rivka, have I told you recently that I really like you?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I see what you mean.
I do offer to get them whatever it is they need, be it food, gas, or whatever. I just don't give them cash.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Kate, yes, actually. But it's nice to hear it anyway.
And in case I didn't make it clear enough recently, the feeling is quite mutual! Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I've been asked more than once on the way into McDonald's for some cash for lunch. I tell them I'm paying with a credit card. The times I've offered to buy them lunch, I've always been turned down with a "nah, forget it."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I'm glad you still offer, though.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: I do offer to get them whatever it is they need, be it food, gas, or whatever. I just don't give them cash.
That's pretty cool. I wouldn't advocate giving cash to most people you don't know (without some sort of reference, at least).
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I've had one person take me up on an offer to buy what she wanted the money for. (A pepsi, as it happens.) The more frequent response is "I can buy my own food." (Not with my money, you can't.) However, when I have food with me (fruit or a granola bar, usually) and offer it, it has always been accepted.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I'd be interested in seeing responses to the criticisms of J. K. Rowling's piece.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
When I've had food with me, that's usually been accepted. When I've offered to buy them lunch, that has usually been turned down.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:I whiled away part of the journey reading a magazine that featured several glossy photographs of a very young woman who is either seriously ill or suffering from an eating disorder (which is, of course, the same thing); anyway, there is no other explanation for the shape of her body. She can talk about eating absolutely loads, being terribly busy and having the world's fastest metabolism until her tongue drops off (hooray! Another couple of ounces gone!), but her concave stomach, protruding ribs and stick-like arms tell a different story. This girl needs help...
My ribs protrude and my arms are certainly not thick. The implication (since I'm male) that I must therefore have some sort of eating disorder is pretty insulting. And, as Dagonee notes, she takes it even further. Given that we just talked about this a page or two ago, I'm surprised to see people heaping praise on Rowling.
I think the issue she took with the magazine was that it was promoting this body type as the ideal. Sure, it might come naturally to some people, but promoting it like that causes eating disorders in young women striving to become what they're told is perfect. I have no problem with that part of what's she saying, and frankly it didn't even occur to me that a naturally thin person might take offense at it.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Although someone (can't find who) did suggest that the world would stop if we didn't.
That might have been me. I wrote in response to your assertion that I believe stereotypes are an important part of decision making. But once I posted, I noticed the discussion had moved on signficantly and that my response wasn't directly relevant anyway and so I deleted my post. Bad etiquette, I know, but I was hoping no one had noticed.
For the record, I think that if we refused to categorize people into groups and/or act according to generalized statements about those groups, we would cripple our ability to act. We naively desire our actions to be based on perfect information and assumptions, but if we wait for a perfect understanding (of people, of situations, of ourselves) we will never act. It's a central paradox of decision theory research: how beneficial/detrimental is considering more information.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that we shouldn't assume that thin, good-looking people are obsessed with being thin and good-looking. Some of you are just lucky!
I do think that, because as a society we are disproportionately obsessed with being thin and good-looking, it is not an unnatural response. That I think it is reactionary does not mean I excuse it.
edit to add not!
[ July 11, 2006, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Sure, it might come naturally to some people, but promoting it like that causes eating disorders in young women striving to become what they're told is perfect.
It's possible to be thin without having an eating disorder, just like it's possible to be fat without being lazy. You weren't saying otherwise, but I wanted to put this out there anyway.
Posted by BebeChouette (Member # 4991) on :
quote: and people blame fellow passengers for their discomfort?
I certainly blame people for exacerbating an already uncomfortable experience.
Really? I assume you meant this directed at obese people in general, as opposed to the other breaches of airplane etiquette.
the airline sold me a seat and didn't put any conditions on me. Even if I'm at my ideal weight, I have broader shoulders than the seat size allows. I don't HAVE to try to give you more space, but I do...
Basically, I'm stuck taking the plane because it's necessary to my livelihood. There comes a point where I don't have a choice but to fly. And even though I'm losing weight now, the sad fact is that I can't lose it before I get on my next plane flight.
I'd even go so far as to apologize if I crowded a person on an airplane, but there's not a heck of a lot I can do about it that would make your ride any more pleasant.
So, what do you suggest?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: I think the issue she took with the magazine was that it was promoting this body type as the ideal.
She should have phrased it as such, then, because as it is, that isn't what she wrote. Like OSC, she's a good writer -- I have a very hard time believing that her choice of phrasing wasn't deliberate.
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: I have no problem with that part of what's she saying, and frankly it didn't even occur to me that a naturally thin person might take offense at it.
It's every bit as offensive as some of the things you've taken offence to in this thread. The most obvious analogy that comes to my mind is the equation of obesity with being slovenly, or slothful, or gluttonous, versus the equation of being skinny with having a physical or psychological disorder. The difference is that in this case the invective isn't directed at the same group. I don't much like the notion that it's okay to belittle thin people, but do it to fat people and you'd better watch out! Then again, I've actually seen that Rowling piece before, and I've seen her praised for it before, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised that people still seem to love it.
I largely agree with both KMB's and JT's posts above.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Just for the record (not that you've asked) you do not fall into the, "geez, that person is skinny" category.
edit to add: not that it is imprtant to the discussion at hand, either.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
My arms are noticeably thicker than they were this time last year, due entirely to increased exercise.
My ribs, however, still protrude, and insofar as the BMI is concerned I'm borderline underweight.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
twinky doesn't fall into the "geez, that perseon is skinny" category because he wears baggy clothes. Honestly, though I've never asked, I suspect this is part of the reason he wears baggy clothes.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
(mumbles rude things about the BMI)
edit to dispute the baggy clothes theory.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Tangent: A friend of mine has recently developed an illness that caused her to lose a lot of weight. She was in shape and athletic before, now she is a skeleton with skin. It is actually frightening to look at her, and to see the bones jutting out through her skin. (Seriously, compared to how she looks right now Callista Flockhart looks chubby. (And so does Twinky.)) She says the most frightening thing for her is the number of people who come up to her and say how great she looks or ask how she managed to lose so much weight. She's working with a dietician and a nutritionist to try to maintain enough body fat to survive while her illness is being treated, and apparently many people find this attractive.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Yeah, we went to a waterpark at JulyCon, so Kate definitely saw my ribs.
I'm not a huge fan of the BMI either.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Didn't mean to be insulting, dude. Carry on Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Preliminary note: I'm using this as an example of the pitfalls associated with even speaking on the topic of body image, and not because I think there's anything wrong with what Kate said. I certainly don't think she had any negative motive at all.
quote:I think that we shouldn't assume that thin, good-looking people are obsessed with being thin and good-looking. Some of you are just lucky!
Look at the two options outlined in this quote. Either the person is obsessed with being think or lucky. This superficially excludes the possibility of working hard to stay in shape yet also not being obsessed being thin.
This is a rather innocuous statement, meant as a lighthearted joke. However, it's easy to see how it could provoke the response, "I work hard at it - it's not luck, and I'm not obsessed." Which, when heard by someone who is struggling mightily to lose weight and failing, could easily be interpreted as a statement that they are not working hard enough.
It can easily deteriorate from there, caused simply by a very innocent remark coupled with a person who doesn't want their hard work dismissed as either obsession or luck.
Just an observation I had about how dangerous language can be.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Eh? I wasn't insulted. That was definitely true in high school, though it's become less true over the last couple of years. Still, I don't generally wear very tight clothes, because my ribs are indeed quite clearly visible.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Didn't notice ribs. Did notice smile andawesome (compared to mine) skill with the tubes!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Dagonee, I did worry about that phrase. I did think about leaving it out - should have. I'm glad that it was taken as it was meant.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
My intent was to point out possibilities to both speakers and listeners, not to say it should have been left out. No one can look at every single thing they say and cypher out what would be offensive.
So if two people find themselves three or four exchanges into something like, maybe they can back out and give each other the benefit of the doubt.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Good point. Honored to be an object lesson! heh
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I had to pick someone I knew would give me the benefit of the doubt. Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:I'd be interested in seeing responses to the criticisms of J. K. Rowling's piece.
Oh believe me, I've already spoken before on how I react to this piece. It makes me not want to buy any more books by this woman because I think she's horribly rude.
I have known one model in my life. She was naturally tall, and she made good money modeling, nothing major, local catalog shoots and fashion shows, particularly bridal shows. She had neither an eating disorder nor was she "lucky." She ate well, eating healthy foods and worked out at least an hour every day to maintain her modeling figure.
It's incredibly insulting for Rowling and others to refer to people like her her as "either seriously ill or suffering from an eating disorder (which is, of course, the same thing); anyway, there is no other explanation for the shape of her body."
Yes there is another explanation - a woman who is naturally tall and inclined to thinness but eats healthily and works out to maintain her figure. Rowling is a jerk in that piece, it made me decidedly not like her at all.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
The skinniest girl in my graduating class got just as much ridicule as the fattest one. Perhaps more.
Her name was Rachel, and the things I heard told about her were beyond cruel. She was a really sweet girl too, and deserved none of it.
I'm sure I am not the only one who recognizes the irony of people requesting empathy for the overweight in the same thread they show none for underweight people.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Skinny males - especially in middle/junior/high school - often get ridiculed for being weak, wimps, geeks, scrawny, too lazy to work out, an easy target for bullying. That would be me, then. Busty, skinny girls in that same period are often assumed to be sluts, and get treated that way even when (and sometimes because) they are not. That would have been Teres, way back when. Both situations do interesting things for your self-esteem. Now we're both in the fat end of the pool, dealing with a whole different set of prejudices.
Come right down to it, I'm not wildly fond of people, in general. Herd mentality does not favor the different.
[ July 11, 2006, 11:07 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Skinny males - especially in middle/junior/high school - often get ridiculed for being weak, wimps, geeks, scrawny, too lazy to work out, an easy target for bullying. That would be me, then. Busty, skinny girls in that same period are often assumed to be sluts, and get treated that way even when (and sometimes because) they are not. That would have been Teres, way back when. Both situations do interesting things for your self-esteem. Now we're both in the fat end of the pool, dealing with a whole different set of prejudices.
Come right down to it, I'm not wildly fond of people, in general. Herd mentality does not favor the different.
Yeah, my Michelle's the same way. She's thin and busty, and when she was sixteen and wore a turtleneck sweater to an Indian-Christian church, she was accused by four women of being a "slut" because their husbands wouldn't stop staring at her.
The longer I live, the more I wish a) everyone were legally mandated to carry swords, and b) duels were legally possible. Also, I'm coming to find I hate everyone.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Give in to your hate. It will make you stronger than you can possibly imagine.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Is it possible to... learn this power?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
I once tried to write a story about a society where no person could be referred to by anything but their name or by a formal temporary naming of the person when identity is unknown. The idea was that all description dehumanized (not something I subscribe to, but I do believe that much language that refers to people dehumanizes). Too cumbersome to pull off, though. [/QB]
The problem with this idea goes far further than being too cumbersome to pull off, it fights against the basic design of our brains. The human brain is designed to find patterns, to seek out similarities and differences. One of the things that you learn as a scientist is that you can't trust your brain because it will find patterns in things even when no patterns exist. This is why we rely on mathematical and statistical tests to validate the patterns we think we see.
This function of our brain is prerequisite for language and communication. If we couldn't categorize things which are similar but not identical, we would have to have a different word for every single item. Whenever we saw anything we hadn't seen before, we would have no words to describe it. But the problem goes even deeper, because no two people say the same word in exactly the same way. The very first thing our brains do when we are babies is to begin categorizing sounds. We can't learn language until we can identify that "love" spoken by Mom means the same thing as "love spoken by Dad and yet "rub" means something different. As babies, our brains begin to map "similar" sounds to the same region of our brains, by the time we are adults, this becomes hardwired and we can no hear difference we could hear as children.
Adult Japanese can't hear the difference be "r" and "l" because their brains have been trained to map these sounds to the same part of the brain. Adult English speakers have a very difficult time hearing the tones in Chinese because our brains have been trained to ignore those differences. Try as I may, I can't hear the difference between the German "a" and the german "aa" sound because my brain maps the two sounds to the same class.
The point is, that while its nice to say that we should never group or classify people, its not going to happend. Discrimination (i.e. grouping and classifying) is what our brains are designed to do. While we can struggle consciously to see past our natural inclination to discriminate, its unreasonable to suggest that we should never classify people.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Ah. See, I just question the motivation of people who tease skinny people.
People who tease fat people do it because they're revolted. Do you think people tease skinny people for the same reason?
I very disappointed Tom, you are usually capable of more empathy than this and better insight.
The adult men who I know, tease people who they consider to be friends. Among men, teasing is a sign that you accepted as one of the gang. If they truly find you revolting, you won't get teased but you won't get invited to parties either.
Adult women generally do not tease each other. Its part of a dynamic I've had to learn as a women working in a male dominated field.
Posted by Celaeno (Member # 8562) on :
Warning: This is a tangent.
Forgive me if this has already been posted. I looked but didn't see it.
I found it pertinent to the discussion but not immediately so.
"A math teacher has sued the Lawrence School District, claiming that he lost his shot at tenure and ultimately his job because of his weight." Continued here. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Rabbit, I'm using "teasing" in this case -- and I suspect most people on this thread have been using it -- to refer to two completely separate sets of behaviors. Young kids tease. In general, adults do NOT tease; the sort of teasing that "different" people face as kids becomes something different by adulthood.
It's very true that adult men "tease" (in the grammar school sense) as a form of friendship. That sort of teasing is not the treatment that most fat men experience until they've already become someone's friend.
I'm not talking about just being singled out when you're young because you're different. That happens to just about everyone, for some reason or another -- being busty, being smart, having curly hair. I'm talking about being singled out your entire life because people are revolted by you. That happens to a much, much smaller set of individuals.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The problem with this idea goes far further than being too cumbersome to pull off, it fights against the basic design of our brains.
This was an SF storie, the ones with the strange language were aliens, and there were humans present to comment on how impossible it was.
quote:The point is, that while its nice to say that we should never group or classify people, its not going to happend. Discrimination (i.e. grouping and classifying) is what our brains are designed to do. While we can struggle consciously to see past our natural inclination to discriminate, its unreasonable to suggest that we should never classify people.
I totally agree. The story was going to a) point out that we must discriminate to function and b) demonstrate the harm it can cause.
It was very ambitious.
[ July 12, 2006, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: I'm sure I am not the only one who recognizes the irony of people requesting empathy for the overweight in the same thread they show none for underweight people.
You definitely aren't the only one.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
quote:the sort of teasing that "different" people face as kids becomes something different by adulthood.
I'm confused... what form does this "teasing" take, if not open mockery? I understand that overweight people are treated differently, but I'm having trouble imagining the majority of it being what I'd call "teasing". What I've experienced are things along the lines of not having the door held open for me, store employees being less willing to help, strangers being less likely to smile at me, being watched when I eat, and of course not being invited to as many parties and such. But I'd never call any of that "teasing", and I'd seriously doubt that any of this treatment was even done consciously. Not to mention a lot of it was probably caused by my own air of insecurity and embarrassment about my appearance.
Is this sort of different treatment what you're calling teasing?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I'm not talking about just being singled out when you're young because you're different. That happens to just about everyone, for some reason or another -- being busty, being smart, having curly hair. I'm talking about being singled out your entire life because people are revolted by you. That happens to a much, much smaller set of individuals.
Tom, I gave you a long list of ways in which I was singled out for being too skinny. They were all examples from when I was an adult not from my childhood. During those years I knew a very large number of overweight people who ran in the some circles, I never heard any of them ridiculed to their face the way I was ridiculed. I'm willing to believe that happens and that I am simply insensitive to it, but I simply can not believe that fat people experience a unique kind of persecution that is unfamiliar to others.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: I'm sure I am not the only one who recognizes the irony of people requesting empathy for the overweight in the same thread they show none for underweight people.
You definitely aren't the only one.
Really, I see a lot of empathy being expressed, and relatively few people expressing something else.
I kind of took these remarks as indicating a more blanket denial of the trials of skinny people, but looking back over the last two pages, I didn't really see that.
Or were you remarking that not nearly as many people rushed in to commisserate after the discussion of being thin started.
... ... ...
Anyway, as I said earlier, we all have our sacks of rocks to lug around. I think that in our culture it is still a problem if you look physically different from "the norm" for your immediate surroundings. You can't usually hide your differences and they ARE used as a basis for treating you different. Doesn't matter if you're thinner, fatter, darker, whatever.
Those early pains (from childhood) don't really go away, do they? If something happens in adulthood to make us feel "different" again, it all comes flooding back, doesn't it?
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
Also, given that 66% of Americans are overweight, and 32% are obese, I wouldn't say it's such a tiny group of individuals being singled out anymore. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I have some empathy for the "underweight." I just have very, very little, as I don't believe that the underweight experience anything nearly as difficult or as negative. (And, in fact, the data strongly suggests that they do not.)
As I said earlier, it's like asking a black man to appreciate how hard it is to be really, really pale-skinned. "Don't you see, man! I get sunburned! People tease me about my freckles!"
quote:I simply can not believe that fat people experience a unique kind of persecution that is unfamiliar to others.
That is, however, the case, provided that you replace the subset "fat" with the superset "ugly."
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Tom, you want people to trust you on your word that you are being persecuted because of your weight. Is it so hard then to trust me on my words when I tell you I was because of my breasts size? I usually have empathy for people who struggle with their weight because even if I don't have that kind of problem I can see how hard it is. However the way you dismiss other people's concerns because they are not yours makes me less empathetic to your particular condition. It shouldn't. But it does. And it saddens me lots.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:However the way you dismiss other people's concerns because they are not yours makes me less empathetic to your particular condition.
I've got a reply to this in Mrs. M's thread. But I want to assure you that I'm not dismissing your experiences. I'm just arguing -- over your objections -- that they weren't as negative or as serious as they would have been if you had also been fat. And, yeah, this is petty on a few levels. But I also want to make sure that people don't just pass this off as "Oh, you'll get teased if you're different" (where "teased" can be assumed to stand in for any value of "treated differently.") Being fat in this society is exactly the same thing as being ugly, although there are groups working to change that. And the uglier you are, the more often you are assumed to be mean, stupid, lazy, clumsy, etc.
In other words, being ugly tends to get the whole boatload of negative assumptions dropped on you, whereas being "different" in any other way usually gets one or two of those same assumptions dropped on you. Being ugly and different, by this logic, is the worst of both worlds.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I hope I'm not one of the ones seen to be unsympathetic for underweight people. If I said anything like that, I'm sorry. About the Rowlings's piece, when I said I hadn't thought about it in that way, I didn't mean that the objection to the article was unfounded, only that I hadn't seen it that way. In fact, when she talked about the woman depicted in the pictures, I was thinking of an actually anorexic woman--like the ones seen on talk shows to discuss anorexia. I see now that she was probably talking about the more "normal" type of thin that you see in celebrities.
My mind immediately jumped to an image that IS obviously unhealthy for anyone, so I thought "aah, they were actually promoting that as desirable?? Good for Rowlings for pointing out that starving yourself isn't the way to go." Not seeing the picture she was talking about, I probably made the wrong assumption.
However, there ARE celebrities who are SO thin that I think it's wrong to promote that image to young women. I think the desire to be so thin like these idols can cause eating disorders, especially in impressionable teenagers. It's not that I don't think anybody should be thin, or that women should only be accepted if they have an extra 20 pounds. But honestly, if that thin celebrity is healthy, even if she shows her ribs, then I also don't think she should be put down for it. Nobody should. I don't think scoffing at her is the answer to prevent eating disorders--she can still be liked and admired, but women of slightly larger sizes should be admired as well.
There is a great range of sizes in men and women that are healthy--the charts might say that the ones on either end are overweight or underweight, but the charts don't know anything.
Extreme thinness should be discouraged rather than encouraged as the ultimate standard of beauty. Extreme fatness should discouraged rather than celebrated as "big and beautiful." But both should be discouraged by your doctors and, in the case of extreme thinness, by the media NOT promoting it to the expense of healthiness, and in the case of extreme fatness, not by scoffing and meanness, but by concern over the person's welfare. (And only doctors, and in some cases loved ones, have the right to make those points to individual persons.)
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz:
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: I'm sure I am not the only one who recognizes the irony of people requesting empathy for the overweight in the same thread they show none for underweight people.
You definitely aren't the only one.
Really, I see a lot of empathy being expressed, and relatively few people expressing something else.
We must be reading different threads.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I kind of took these remarks as indicating a more blanket denial of the trials of skinny people, but looking back over the last two pages, I didn't really see that.
Or were you remarking that not nearly as many people rushed in to commisserate after the discussion of being thin started.
How different are "blanket denial" and "lack of acknowledgement" in this context?
I'm also surprised that you say you haven't seen it, since that sort of explicit denial of merit is Tom's entire point. "You might have problems, but we've got it worse."
As I said, I'm not interested in Tom's persecution complex pissing contest. In this context, I don't care if his problems are bigger or worse than mine have ever been; from what little he's said about his childhood, that's almost certainly the case, regardless of our respective BMIs. What I am interested in is acknowledgement that fat people are not the only ones with serious problems, because things like Rowling's piece make it clear that some people think it's okay to belittle people as long as the victims aren't fat. This basically translates to: "Oh, come on, those aren't real problems, try being fat." Which is absurd.
------
Tom, you're conflating the aggregate and the anecdotal. The assertion that fat people are more often belittled is by no means unreasonable. You're extending that to suggest that people should refrain from having empathy for thin people who do have serious problems -- because after all, they're thin. It could be worse, they could be fat!
The obvious counter to that argument is: it could be worse, both of you could be starving and living with AIDS in Africa. That's why I'm not interested in buying into this comparison of persecution complexes -- there are plenty of severe problems experienced by many people that are not significantly amplified or dampened by that person's attractiveness or weight.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
From the article:
quote:As for people like me, who see only clogged arteries when they see a fat person, we're beyond the pale.
That's so me.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: From the article:
quote:As for people like me, who see only clogged arteries when they see a fat person, we're beyond the pale.
That's so me.
Clogged arteries are by no means exclusive to fat people. For example, I have high cholesterol; my father, who was was always physically active and generally very fit throughout most of his life, had five coronary bypasses put in when he was in his late 50s.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote: because things like Rowling's piece make it clear that some people think it's okay to belittle people as long as the victims aren't fat.
Well, it's not okay.
It's also not okay to belittle people as long as the victims ARE fat. Which is where I think the thread started.
It's all NOT okay.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I'm glad we agree. Unfortunately, J. K. Rowling apparently disagrees. I only hope the attitude doesn't become prevalent.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You're extending that to suggest that people should refrain from having empathy for thin people who do have serious problems...
No. What I'm saying, though, is that Rowling and Oprah and anyone else who's currently crusading against the media image of "unheathily thin" models are actually engaging in a form of affirmative action, attempting to combat the prevalent assumption that fat people are both ugly and unhealthy. While I've never been someone to say something like "real women have curves," I think those people who do think of the possibility that thin people might be insulted in the same way that a diversity coordinator might consider the possibility that a white man might be denied entry to college: that it's a regretful harm, but only a tiny swing in the other direction against the prevailing society and therefore "worth it." But I'm speculating.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:You're extending that to suggest that people should refrain from having empathy for thin people who do have serious problems...
No. What I'm saying, though, is that Rowling and Oprah and anyone else who's currently crusading against the media image of "unheathily thin" models are actually engaging in a form of affirmative action, attempting to combat the prevalent assumption that fat people are both ugly and unhealthy. While I've never been someone to say something like "real women have curves," I think those people who do think of the possibility that thin people might be insulted in the same way that a diversity coordinator might consider the possibility that a white man might be denied entry to college: that it's a regretful harm, but only a tiny swing in the other direction against the prevailing society and therefore "worth it." But I'm speculating.
Out of sheer curiousity, is anyone here in favor of affirmative action as a means of combating racism?
I've yet to meet someone who is.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am when it comes to education.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote: But what I find incredibly interesting is how much attitude and dress and manner has to do with people's perceptions of you. There is a woman in my office who is quite large--but she does not act like it. In fact, it is a surprising thing to think of her in that way. She is bubbly and loudly converses and wears clothing that is just the right amount of loud (bright colors, etc.). She has a great amount of presence, and it has all to do with her personality, and I would be surprised if people who know her would describe her as a large woman. It's so far apart from what she is and presents herself as.
My wife is overweight, as am I these days, but her personality is so strong that people rarely comment on it. We talked about both our weight issues before getting married, because of the possible health issues, but neither of us allows ourselves to be defined by our weight.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:You're extending that to suggest that people should refrain from having empathy for thin people who do have serious problems...
No.
Earlier on this page, you posted:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I've got a reply to this in Mrs. M's thread. But I want to assure you that I'm not dismissing your experiences. I'm just arguing -- over your objections -- that they weren't as negative or as serious as they would have been if you had also been fat.
You've also expressly stated that you have "very little" empathy for the problems of thin and/or attractive people:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I have some empathy for the "underweight." I just have very, very little, as I don't believe that the underweight experience anything nearly as difficult or as negative. (And, in fact, the data strongly suggests that they do not.)
My father died last year, shortly after I turned 24. It's a straightforward application of your reasoning, as described in the snippets I've quoted above, to suggest that I would be having a harder time coping with it if I were fat. That's ridiculous.
Even if you don't mean to make that implication, it's certainly there in what you're writing.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: What I'm saying, though, is that Rowling and Oprah and anyone else who's currently crusading against the media image of "unheathily thin" models are actually engaging in a form of affirmative action, attempting to combat the prevalent assumption that fat people are both ugly and unhealthy.
Rowling is doing it by expressly belittling thin people, which breaks the analogy with affirmative action. It's more analogous to the difference between feminism and misandry.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I am when it comes to education.
Can you explain to me why you feel this way? I don't want to derail this thread, so feel free to e-mail me via profile link. I would appreciate it - thanks!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It's a straightforward application of your reasoning, as described in the snippets I've quoted above, to suggest that I would be having a harder time coping with it if I were fat.
No. I'm saying that in situations where appearance is at all relevant, it's almost universally true that being thin is better than being fat. You might have a different experience if you show up to a Weight Watchers' support group and complain about how hard it is for you to gain a pound, but otherwise you will -- in all equivalent appearance-related situations -- have it easier.
quote:Rowling is doing it by expressly belittling thin people...
No more than someone might belittle a white person by suggesting that he's only more educated because he got "lucky." I'm not saying it's right, but I'm saying that her assertion that excessive thinness is unattractive is a direct and transparent attempt to reverse what is otherwise the prevalent opinion of society, especially for women: that excessive thinness is a primary standard of beauty.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Katarain:
quote: because things like Rowling's piece make it clear that some people think it's okay to belittle people as long as the victims aren't fat.
Well, it's not okay.
It's also not okay to belittle people as long as the victims ARE fat. Which is where I think the thread started.
It's all NOT okay.
You are right. It is not okay to belittle big people or little people or any people. It blows my mind that this even needs to be said. What is wrong with some people?
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
It's not okay to belittle people who belittle people, Tante. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:It's a straightforward application of your reasoning, as described in the snippets I've quoted above, to suggest that I would be having a harder time coping with it if I were fat.
No. I'm saying that in situations where appearance is at all relevant, it's almost universally true that being thin is better than being fat. You might have a different experience if you show up to a Weight Watchers' support group and complain about how hard it is for you to gain a pound, but otherwise you will -- in all equivalent appearance-related situations -- have it easier.
The "in all situations where appearance is at all relevant" qualifier is a new addition.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Rowling is doing it by expressly belittling thin people...
No more than someone might belittle a white person by suggesting that he's only more educated because he got "lucky." I'm not saying it's right, but I'm saying that her assertion that excessive thinness is unattractive is a direct and transparent attempt to reverse what is otherwise the prevalent opinion of society, especially for women: that excessive thinness is a primary standard of beauty.
You're right, it's an attempt to completely reverse that standard. Rowling equates thinness with mental and physical illness, unattractiveness, shallowness, and stupidity. However, even confining ourselves to the U.S., your analogy doesn't hold. The education would not have a causal relationship with the whiteness, only a correlative one. The causal relationship would actually be with wealth.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Hmm... I think JK Rowling's article also mentioned the singer Pink - I like her song stupid girl and if you look at the clip you'll see it's the attitude she stigmatizes, not the looks. She is pretty thin and good-looking herself.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The education would not have a causal relationship with the whiteness, only a correlative one. The causal relationship would actually be with wealth.
Not to nitpick, but I think most supporters of affirmative action might also assume that whiteness has a causal relationship with wealth. Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: As I said earlier, it's like asking a black man to appreciate how hard it is to be really, really pale-skinned. "Don't you see, man! I get sunburned! People tease me about my freckles!"
*Sidebar*
As I've mentioned before my boyfriend Steve is multiracial with an interestingly ambiguous skin tone. I suspect he's exactly in the middle on the bell curve graph they show of skin color ranges. If he gets sun you'd probably guess he's "black". If he's been out of the sun all winter, you have to debate before attempting to classify him (if one must classify, his closest category is Afro-cuban) He's been the token black kid in some school districts and the token white kid in others. As his skin changes color, he's been guessed to be a gamut of ethnicities, and in the recent cultural climate people have often been assuming "Middle Eastern" although how they get there, I'm not sure.
Well this past winter, he was indoors substatially more than at any other time in his life, and turned the palest I've ever seen him.
When he started getting sent out to the construction sites this spring, he got a mild sunburn for the first time in his life. It was the sort of sunburn I'd barely consider a burn. The man was utterly and horribly miserable. I have to admit I laughed at him, because to me he was being a baby about something so minor.
However, the experience, suddenly made him understand the *concept* of sunburn. Before that point, he had no frame of reference for what I went through, suddenly he had a lot more empathy for me.
For another example, I happen to have a shade of naturally blonde hair that some people pay large sums of money to acquire by artifical means. I dyed it red. I did get treated differently as a redhead than a blonde. Before that time I really had no concept that blondes were treated differently. I was treated the way I was because I was me, not because I was blonde.
There is quantitive science that shows attractive people are treated better and some of that attraction is hardwired into our brains across cultures, often having to do with biological fertility signals.
However, on this thread, there are only a few people who have been both fat *and* thin, and there are clearly people who have been or are at both ends of the spectrum.
The problem is, that data or no data, unless you actually *experience* both ends of the spectrum, you don't have much of a basis for qualitative judgement. While we all can imagine the other side, our concept, might be entirely different in real life than our imagining it. (I'd say sex is the same way.)
It's the difference between sympathy and empathy also. I guess what i'm saying is that I'm more inclined, when discussing feelings, perceptions and emotions (which are inherently subjective), to view the people who have been both fat and thin, as giving the more objective evaluation of their social acceptance as a result of their appearance. Because they have actually lived both, and have been in both kinds of shoes. They truly understand both *concepts*
AJ
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:The education would not have a causal relationship with the whiteness, only a correlative one. The causal relationship would actually be with wealth.
Not to nitpick, but I think most supporters of affirmative action might also assume that whiteness has a causal relationship with wealth.
That's sort of the point. The causal chain in your affirmative action example has two links: white->wealthy->educated. Your purportedly analogous example is only a single step: overweight->unattractive.
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
On AJ's point, I mentioned that in high school I gained sixty pounds within one school year. While it brought me from being borderline underweight to borderline overweight, those friends I had through high school deny even noticing. I barely noticed myself, I never changed my attitude because honestly, I never noticed I was skinny to begin with. Relatives who see me once a year commented on my "round face" and "filling out". What neither of these groups of people saw was that I suddenly had to learn how to make friends. Before, people always came up to me, approached me, I was asked on dates, people liked me and didn't mind me butting in on conversations and I was welcomed into them. All of a sudden, after gaining weight, it was like I was a non-entity. I was never randomly approached to be talked to, I had to learn how to do that myself. The people I did make friends with were, actually, worth the effort and much more quality than the loads of people I had hung out with up until then. It was a strange difference.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The causal chain in your affirmative action example has two links: white->wealthy->educated. Your purportedly analogous example is only a single step: overweight->unattractive.
So you're saying that a more direct causal link is a bad thing for my argument? *blink* I don't quite understand why that would make it a less-appropriate analogy.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Twinky, I think you are misunderstanding Rowling's comment. She was talking about the celebutantes that have visibly gone from normal to very thin and have been lauded and envied for doing so. She's saying that as a woman and as a mother of daughter, she'd prefer that the great praise and applause were for other things.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Out of sheer curiousity, is anyone here in favor of affirmative action as a means of combating racism?
I've yet to meet someone who is.
I am. I also don't think that you are looking very hard.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:However, on this thread, there are only a few people who have been both fat *and* thin, and there are clearly people who have been or are at both ends of the spectrum.
I had a blind date spend 15 minutes with me and excuse herself. That was when I was too thin.
I can conclusively say that, for me, being thin was far worse. It resulted in physical consequences I would not have had to bear had I been too heavy.
And, no, I'm not attempting to generalize it in anyway. It's simply a fact about my experiences.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Tom, I'm saying that affirmative action is sufficiently different from conceptions of beauty (with respect to weight) as to make the analogy useless. Belittling a white person by saying they're only educated because they're white is a non-sequitur. Remember, I haven't suggested that society's conception of "attractive" doesn't entail being thin. I also haven't suggested that that state of affairs is correct or appropriate. On that score, I do agree with Rowling.
Kat, I don't think I'm misinterpreting Rowling at all. It's not like she's using vague language. If she means something else -- that is, if she didn't actually mean that thin people are only thin because they have a physical or mental disorder, or that thin people are shallow and stupid -- then she should use different words. As it is, she makes points about celebrity, standards of beauty, and the mental and physical health and worth of thin people. Because she's an eloquent writer, I think it's entirely fair to assume that she knows exactly what she's saying and chose her words deliberately.
For example, from the first paragraph:
quote:...her concave stomach, protruding ribs and stick-like arms tell a different story. This girl needs help...
At various times, including right now, I have had some or all of these characteristics. I don't have any physical or mental disorders that contribute to my thinness, and the suggestion that I do -- that there is no other way to be thin -- is insulting. If Rowling becomes a rallying point for people who want to change society's conception of beauty, thin people are going to come out heavily on the losing end. That'd be a shame, since beauty isn't a zero-sum game. Thin people don't have to lose for overweight people to win.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am when it comes to education.
As am I. Perhaps a new thread?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am when it comes to education.
As am I. Perhaps a new thread?
I assume the first quotation was in reference to "Out of sheer curiousity, is anyone here in favor of affirmative action as a means of combating racism?"
Do you two really think it combats racism? Or does it merely combat one of the more pernicious effects of racism?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:As am I. Perhaps a new thread?
I'm thinking: yes.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: . . . She was talking about the celebutantes that have visibly gone from normal to very thin and have been lauded and envied for doing so.
Is there other content on her site or something that makes you think this, kat? Because I just went back and re-read, and I see nothing that indicates she's talking about someone who had that kind of public weight change. She could have been, certainly, but she also could have been talking about one of the many women in the public eye who have been extremely thin the entire time they have been in the public eye, so we don't know if it really is their natural (and healthy) state or if they got there through unhealthy amounts of dieting/malnutrition and exercise.
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
I agree with kat, because Rowling said "have visibly gone from normal to very thin" which means that they haven't always been like that.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Where does she say that, Myr? I can't find it in the essay quoted at the bottom of page 7 of this thread.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Most people know that it is possible to be overweight for genetic reasons, few seem to realize that being this is also true of being very thin and think people like me must be anorexic (I actually eat quite allot.)
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
Oh wow, I totally got that from kat's post, didn't I. Definitely a sign it's time for some coffee, carry on with your regularly scheduled debate Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
She is seconding Pink's song "Stupid Girls", which actually names names. Almost all of the people named HAVE gone from slim/normal to very thin.
If necessary, I can name names and give backgrounds, which would be embarassing as it would kill my geeky persona. Anyway, I doubt she's talking about Kiera Knightly, who has always been as slender as she is. Other people, like those named in Pink's song, have either visibly shrunk themselves to achieve the visible-ribs look and been praised for it or else have actually been in the hospital for eating disorders because they've been forcing themselves to be severely underweight for years.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
And calling such girls stupid isn't any nicer or more accurate than calling overweight people lazy.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
She doesn't get to Pink's song until the end of the piece. There's plenty of offensive language in her first paragraph.
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
Now that I've re-read the essay, what I got out of it was that people should not be glorified for their bodies, and nothing else. Especially when those bodies are something that, for many people (obviously there are many exceptions and people who are naturally very thin, etc), would be unhealthy for people to try to imitate. To be honest, I do not find myself annoyed by the article because I myself am not thin Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*shrug* I think you're too busy being offended to get her point. Do you really that Rowling, J.K. Rowling, thinks that slender people are stupid and ugly? She's slender - do you think she hates herself? I'm astonished that you are attributing such awful intentions to her, and I think that's too bad.
Her point is that she doesn't want her daughters to valued by others or herself based on their weight. I love that argument. I think that the basing of worth on looks is a horribly sexist practice that does a disservice to both sexes.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
As I've said before, I like Rowling's point too and agree with her that she should be valued for her accomplishments and not the fact that her waist is smaller.
I just think she made the point in a horribly rude way.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think it's too bad that her perceived bad example has been aped.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Kat, to be perfectly honest, I doubt I can reply to your 3:14 PM post in a civil manner, either your edited version or the original version. If you honestly believe that I'm so quick to take offence that I didn't bother reading the piece (or am incapable of reading and comprehending something written in clear and concise English), when I've already given you an explicit and accurate list of the points made therein, then we can't have a productive discussion.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:*shrug* I think you're too busy being offended to get her point. Do you really that Rowling, J.K. Rowling, thinks that slender people are stupid and ugly? She's slender - do you think she hates herself?
1.) she's not slender in the manner she described. Twinky has expounded on the specifics already.
2.) I think you're too busy agreeing with her point to see the offense.
quote:Her point is that she doesn't want her daughters to valued by others or herself based on their weight. I love that argument. I think that the basing of worth on looks is a horribly sexist practice that does a disservice to both sexes.
I agree with that point. I disagree with the fact that she felt the need to insult people to make it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think it's too bad that the discussion is about her style instead of her substance. Which does, amusingly, kind of fit in with what she was saying.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Thank you, Dagonee. That last part is what I'm talking about.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Let me give it a try.
"I was very disappointed that this woman chose to focus on how much weight I'd lost. In that time period, I had given birth and published a book, both accomplishments I believe are much more important than losing a couple of pounds.
It occurred to me that I don't want my daughters to grow up believing that skeletal thin is an ideal body type, or that their own personal sense of worth should be based upon the ability to wear a size three or not. Every woman, whether she wears a size 3 or 23, has worth and value. We should look beyond appearances and not judge the person next to us based on how big or small they are. The girl that looks anorexic may be recovering from cancer, the girl that is heavy may be facing genetic conditions or be taking a medication that causes her to put on weight. We never know what a person is dealing with, and judgments about their character or personality based on their looks is foolish on our part.
As human beings, we should look beyond the outside and relate to our fellow human beings on a personal level instead of a superficial one."
Now I just typed that off the top of my head, and I certainly don't claim to be as good of a writer as Rowling. I truly, truly belive the woman is articulate enough to make her point without being rude. And I'm disappointed that she chose not to.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Twinky, what do you think about what she's saying? That she would greatly prefer her daughters strive to be Hermione instead of working (if they are not naturally thin, it will take work) to be very slender?
Dag: It doesn't say she's not slender. In fact, the story she related was on being congratulated for being slender when the last time the woman had seen her she had been pregnant.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Kat, that should tell you something about the merit of Rowling's choice of rhetorical style.
Do you read OSC's op-ed columns? Watch Michael Moore's films? Do you think that sort of argumentative style is effective for anything other than preaching to the proverbial choir?
I don't.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag: It doesn't say she's not slender. In fact, the story she related was on being congratulated for being slender when the last time the woman had seen her she had been pregnant.
I didn't say JKR wasn't slender. I said she wasn't slender in the manner she described, with "concave stomach, protruding ribs and stick-like arms."
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Twinky, it is equally likely it says something about the poeple commenting.
<edited> Never mind. I can't believe I'm arguing this. Not worth it.
Anyway, I love what she was saying, and I attribute Rowling's fury at the elevation of artificial thinness as a virtue above all others women are capable of to her protectiveness towards her daughters and her admiration of Hermione, the character she created.
She said it memorably but perhaps not the most politely. I'd like to think that it's a signal of the seriousness of the issue rather than a reason to dismiss her.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:My view of the piece requires an assumption of good intent on her part.
I don't think either one of our views are inconsistent with an assumption of good intent on her part. If she didn't intend to be insulting then she was careless, in the same way many people have been annoyed with remarks insulting to overweight people made out of carelessness, not malice.
Either way, she was insulting, and she contributed to the same type of hostility that many people were complaining about yesterday with respect to overweight people.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh, I edited it immediately after I wrote it. I'm not arguing about Rowling anymore - I don't see any willingness to give her anything like the benefit of the doubt, and I think the discussion of her style in that one piece is interfering with the main issue.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
There is no doubt in my mind she had good intent. There is also no doubt in my mind that the people offering weight-loss tips earlier in this thread had good intent. They still managed to be offensive to a lot of people. The only differences I see is I think Rowling's piece is more explicitly offensive, and that it is offensive to the non-target audience instead of the target audience.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*slowly, because she's sitting on her hands* would...prefer...not...to...respond...not...main...issue...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It was the main issue when people posted the weight loss tips. No one here has stated that they disagree with her main point. What's to discuss?
The way it relates to the thread at this point is the parallel between her blog entry and several posts on this thread.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I've already said that I agree with her main point, as have numerous others. No one has said that they disagree. Dagonee hit the nail on the head.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
kat, I hadn't seen your post saying you weren't going to respond yet when I posted. I wasn't trying to draw you back into it. Posted by Sharpie (Member # 482) on :
Rowling's piece includes some things that are explicitly offensive, I agree. And were she HERE, I would call her on it. This thread, though, doesn't have anyone -- anyone of US, our group, our community -- saying things like "ew, ugh, skinny people. I don't HATE them, but I wouldn't want to be married to/friends with one of them."
I'm not foaming at the mouth, I swear .
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I like what Sharpie said very much.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
So has this thread turned into another discussion on style vs substance?
I realize the two interact with each other, and the style in which information is presented often determines its palatablity or unpalitability. But, if we aren't charitable and get too bogged down in style (either direction) we lose the substance.
I haven't seen anyone (that I remember) actually defend fat as a separate "protected status" with a unique set of rights anywhere in this thread. The only thing similar that I can think of that currently exists on the books are the anti-discrimination and accessibility laws for handicapped people.
The rammifications of actually putting this as some sort of law on the books, are pretty far reaching societally and economically. BUt this thread still seems to be bogged down in the "appearance" issue.
AJ
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
:/
Sharpie, but this thread does have people pointing to what Rowling said and holding it up as great, soemthing that needs to be said. Unless they specifically state that they're not agreeing with the explicitly offensive part, I think it's something that deserves to be recognized and discussed. You can't say it's not worth talking about because she's not here when multiple people are pointing to what she said as good.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Is that what the problem is? I haven't said that I think it was rude?
Okay: I think she said it dramatically, memorably, in a fury of indignation, and impolitely with a hyperbole that drew attention to itself instead of her point.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I prefer the way that some comapnies are combating the image of fat=ugly - by using heavier models. Not saying that there is anything wrong with thin models, just saying that they are, perhaps, over-represented. "Of course, they are attractive! Look how attractive these people are, too!"
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
As one whose body type is decidedly endomorphic, I cannot find anything to take offence at in Ms Rowling's statement. She did not say that it was wrong to be thin, only that there were far more important things. She is, after all, herself thin.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
kat, you weren't the one who posted it in this thread, or the only one who agreed with it. So no, the problem isn't that you haven't said you think it's rude. The problem is that it's been held up by numerous people as a great thing, and that none of them, you included, had acknowledged that she was building up normal and heavier girls by tearing down thin ones.
Added: The problem for me, of course. Can't speak for anyone else.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
I *cough* agree with Pelegius.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote:Unless they specifically state that they're not agreeing with the explicitly offensive part,...
Say that 10 times fast
I guess it's also an issue of boundaries. Different people have different thresholds of offence where they will let something slide by or draw attention to it. To me it's a cost-benefit decision every time.
Yes, there's fat discrimination, thin discrimination, ugly discrimination and beautiful discrimination, and varying combinations of the above in varying severites. But again, short of true disability status, don't all of the classes listed above have the same general rights under the law according to the constitution? Do we need any extra laws to say that they should be treated fairly?
(the biggest area I actually see being a problem is health insurance.)
AJ
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't think she was tearing down thin girls. I think she was tearing down girls who have as their primary accomplishment being thin, and she was especially critical of those who applaud them furiously based on that one characteristic. She was idignant about it because she thinks other characteristics were much more important. And yes, I think that point was great.
So, no, I don't agree with your interpretation. I'm not doing that out of stubborness - I think your interpretation is mistaken.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Except for her first paragraph, I agree with you. Especially about the what the woman said to her personally -- if she knew Rowling had had a child and published a book in that time frame, and how could anyone not know, then the fact that she commented first on her weight says something crappy about both that woman and how our society views weight.
But the first paragraph is incredibly detailed and insulting, and since we don't know who specifically she was talking about in that paragraph, we don't know if that person has, in fact, as her primary accomplishment being thin, or is one of the (admitedly small number of) people for whom visible ribs and stick-like arms is their natural and healthy state. Without some indication that there has been visible public weight loss for that particular person, her comments seem to say that all exceedingly thin people must be ill.
Posted by Sharpie (Member # 482) on :
Okay, that's fair enough, ElJay. But can I take that point to mean that folks who do not explicitly disagree with what some of the posters earlier in this thread have said — that they agree with them? I hope not. I actually hope that most of us DO think that those comments were out of line.
And I’m sorry if I seemed to imply that anything wasn't worthy of discussion! These are important subjects, and Rowling is a powerful, influential person. If we don't fight ideas that we think are worth fighting — no matter who says them — then we are contributing in a small way, and sometimes in a large way, to their spread.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
The other thing I hate is that unusually thin women are more likely to succeed as actresses than normal women who have to diet and exercise severely to meet Hollywood's ideal. So women like Calistra Flockhart and Lara Flynn Boyle, who from what I've seen probably really are naturally that tiny, face accusations in the tabloids that they're anerexic while Mary Kate Olsen and Nicole Richie are celebrated for losing weight until their sickness gets bad enough that they have to get professional help. It's completely wack.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:I whiled away part of the journey reading a magazine that featured several glossy photographs of a very young woman who is either seriously ill or suffering from an eating disorder (which is, of course, the same thing); anyway, there is no other explanation for the shape of her body. She can talk about eating absolutely loads, being terribly busy and having the world's fastest metabolism until her tongue drops off (hooray! Another couple of ounces gone!), but her concave stomach, protruding ribs and stick-like arms tell a different story.
She doesn't mention that this young woman was previously at a greater weight. This could very well be Kiera Knightly she is referring to. She says that this woman is underweight, so she has an eating disorder and is ill. She judges the young woman about as harshly as possibly, based solely on her underweight appearance.
This is despite the fact that the woman on the cover specifically claims otherwise. Rowling also says she's a liar. We are supposed to give Rowling the benefit of the doubt, assuming that the young woman is a liar?
Rowling is clearly saying that the only way someone could have the qualities of being underweight which she describes (and which twinky also holds) is if they have an eating disorder. No style debate, its as clear as anything can be in the English language. It’s now content. It’s content which does not change the overall intended message, but it’s content nonetheless. Offensive content.
quote:I've got two daughters who will have to make their way in this skinny-obsessed world, and it worries me, because I don't want them to be empty-headed, self-obsessed, emaciated clones.
Here she is associating the qualities: "empty-headed, self-obsessed, emaciated clones" with being underweight.
Imagine someone saying this:
quote:I've got two daughters who will have to make their way in this food-obsessed world, and it worries me, because I don't want them to be obese, lazy, slovenly, disgusting pigs.
And then several people post their support for the article which had this quote. Imagine that some of the people supporting the quote were the exact same people asking for empathy for their own, opposite problems.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sharpie: Okay, that's fair enough, ElJay. But can I take that point to mean that folks who do not explicitly disagree with what some of the posters earlier in this thread have said — that they agree with them? I hope not. I actually hope that most of us DO think that those comments were out of line.
If the posters refer to the out of line posts and say "I like what poster X said," then I think it's fair to at least point out the offensive parts and ask them if they also agree to that portion. Which is all twinky initially did about Rowlings post, I believe. But if someone is just posting in the same thread and not commenting one way or the other about the offensive posts? Then I think it's too much of a reach to assume they're agreeing with them.
And thanks. Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
ElJay, this may be horribly "engineer" of me, but I think truly the "camera adds 10 pounds" effect, does make a difference, when filming and translating from a 3 dimensional scene to a 2 dimensional medium, particularly with all of the lighting and stuff they do now, and especially with the quality of color cameras we have now.
Now I think it's become a downward vortex of selection towards the naturally thin and the elevation of thinness into near idolatry in some cases, but I do understand the need for having someone unusally thin in order to have them look normal on camera. Problem is now you have to have someone who is "super-thin" IRL in order to look "thin" on camera.
AJ
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Sharpie:
It was greeted with approval, and, other than Dagonee and myself, no one voiced criticism of it until I explicitly asked for responses. Nobody said "I really dig her main point, but..."
Saying "I love what she wrote" when what she wrote included invective against thin people is obviously not the same as writing invective against thin people yourself. However, it's similar in a loose enough sense that the double standard -- approval for Rowling's piece, immediate dogpiling for erosomniac, MrSquicky, and BaoQingTian -- really struck me, especially since we'd just talked about being rude toward thin people within the preceding two pages.
That is to say, the people who had just finished saying that it wasn't okay to belittle thin people mostly didn't say that JKR was rude in her piece. It made me wonder whether their recently-stated committment to impartiality was really just lip service. Thankfully, Katarin in particular addressed that concern of mine a page or two ago.
Ordinarily, you're right, I wouldn't take silence for tacit approval just on the face of it. I should hope not, otherwise people might think I agreed with, say, starLisa about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, because I don't talk about my view of it here. However, in this particular case, when we'd just come off talking about being nice to skinny people as well, I fully expected the things that people had said in the preceding pages to be put into practice. Instead, I had to explicitly ask about it.
I agree with X's very recent post above mine.
KMB:
I agree with you. In Toronto this spring there was an ad campaign (for moisturizer, I think) that featured a group of models standing around in matching underwear. The models were of various ethnicities, but all of them were a lot heavier than the models you'd normally see on a billboard, and they weren't airbrushed all to heck, either. There were love handles and wrinkles, and boy, did those models ever look great! I'm glad I wasn't driving the car the first time I saw one of the billboards. It was heartwarming.
Some people didn't like the campaign because the models were in their underwear and they didn't like to see people in their underwear plastered all over the city. That's a valid criticism (of many advertising campaigns), I guess, but it didn't bother me.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
That ad campaign is for Dove. I really like it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:That is to say, the people who had just finished saying that it wasn't okay to belittle thin people mostly didn't say that JKR was rude in her piece. It made me wonder whether their recently-stated committment to impartiality was really just lip service. Thankfully, Katarin in particular addressed that concern of mine a page or two ago.
Ordinarily, you're right, I wouldn't take silence for tacit approval just on the face of it. I should hope not, otherwise people might think I agreed with, say, starLisa about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, because I don't talk about my view of it here. However, in this particular case, when we'd just come off talking about being nice to skinny people as well, I fully expected the things that people had said in the preceding pages to be put into practice. Instead, I had to explicitly ask about it.
To be perfectly honest, I had skipped over the Rowling piece until you asked for reactions to it. Sorry.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote: I agree with you. In Toronto this spring there was an ad campaign (for moisturizer, I think) that featured a group of models standing around in matching underwear. The models were of various ethnicities, but all of them were a lot heavier than the models you'd normally see on a billboard, and they weren't airbrushed all to heck, either. There were love handles and wrinkles, and boy, did those models ever look great! I'm glad I wasn't driving the car the first time I saw one of the billboards. It was heartwarming. [Smile]
Some people didn't like the campaign because the models were in their underwear and they didn't like to see people in their underwear plastered all over the city. That's a valid criticism (of many advertising campaigns), I guess, but it didn't bother me.
See, while I approve of that ad campaign on principle, I don't like it because in a situation where the appeal is supposed to be 100% cosmetic, I do not want to see a typical sampling of human beings in their underwear.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Why not? Any human beings?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I've seen the ad -- they are attractive people. Just real attractive people.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I've seen the ad -- they are attractive people. Just real attractive people.
I happen to disagree?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Bzzzzt! The scrawny models are real people too. The Dove ads are just a wider spectrum of real attractive people.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What is unattractive about them? They are not even "fat". They are probably size 8 or 10. Nothing morbidly unhealthy about them.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: ElJay, this may be horribly "engineer" of me, but I think truly the "camera adds 10 pounds" effect, does make a difference, when filming and translating from a 3 dimensional scene to a 2 dimensional medium, particularly with all of the lighting and stuff they do now, and especially with the quality of color cameras we have now.
Now I think it's become a downward vortex of selection towards the naturally thin and the elevation of thinness into near idolatry in some cases, but I do understand the need for having someone unusally thin in order to have them look normal on camera. Problem is now you have to have someone who is "super-thin" IRL in order to look "thin" on camera.
AJ
This is true, BTW. In my experience, people who don't look particularly thin on camera look much thinner in person.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
erso, sorry, I parsed your post to be speaking in the hypothetical and didn't realize you had seen the ad.
dkw, bite me. Oh, wait, you're really hungry, right? Then don't.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
By "on camera," do you mean photography, film, or both? I'm curious to know if I look thinner in person than in pictures.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
*gnaws ElJay's arm*
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
ahhh, sibling rivalry.... AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Twinky, some of both, probably slightly more in film than in stills. I've noticed that people who seem as heavier in film, sometimes look much thinner in stills. Happens with the haute couture models too. The don't look as thin when you see them in TV runway shows, but they look much thinner in Vogue.
AJ
(rephrased in edit, and not sure still if it's exactly right)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I meant film. And likely TV. When I meet actors they tend to seem much smaller in person. Shorter, too.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Interesting. Okay.
If you ever see me in a swimsuit or something in person, let me know if I'm skinnier than I look in the pictures you've seen. Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Definitely shorter. There's hardly a leading man in Hollywood that I couldn't pick up over my head and heave a good ways.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:The don't look as thin when you see them in TV runway shows, but they look much thinner in Vogue.
That might be because of airbrush cheats that are used in magazines to make the models appear thinner, have larger breasts, etc..
You didn't seem particularly skinny in person. Honestly. The first guy I dated (many, many years ago) was about your size - not quite as tall - so maybe my frame of reference is off.
I haven't spent too much time looking at the pictures. I need to maintain some decorum at work. Way too hot for work. I would have guessed that you have put on some weight since the pics, but that could be angle.
I know that I am always horrified (though I should be used to it) at myself in pictures and am less so in the mirror.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Some magazines cheat more than others,(The one you linked to and Cosmo and others in that genre for sure) However I picked Vogue because it is much more into the artistic aspect of things, and the focus is on the clothes, so they don't airbrush in the same way other magazines do. I'm not saying they never airbrush, but the Vogue photographers also are very arty and take pride in their shooting abilities and also take some offence if their photography is messed with significantly. They also get models they don't need to airbrush as long as they are well made up.
And Vouge's standard models that I observed don't have large breasts either. Generally if they get a celeb in to do modelling, the celeb is more curvaceous than a standard Vogue model.
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I have untouched photographs from the high end photoshoot used in the Ann Taylor Catalog. The model was a French Chanel model and the pictures happened to include a puppy I bred (why I have them) They might have done a bit of color toning between the originals and the publication, but they didn't airbrush anything.
AJ
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
They didn't bother because they knew that with the total cuteness of the puppy no one would be looking at the model anyway.
Posted by Sharpie (Member # 482) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: They didn't bother because they knew that with the total cuteness of the puppy no one would be looking at the model anyway.
This is why I HAVE a dog.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Also in stills they contort the models into much more non-normal poses than they can do on the runway, though even on the runway the poses aren't exactly "normal human" either.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
This is a sidetrack from my original point though...is the film industry wrong for selecting humans that end up looking better on camera, even if it is a bias towards thinness? Is this actually true discrimination against fat people?
It's also easier to take a thin body, and modify it with costumes and makeup and adding and subtracting layers to get a final effect than it is a heavier body. It's easier to theatrically add curves than remove them. Look at drag queens.
AJ
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I have always understood that the fashion industry is at least partly resonsible for the current thinness fad. Current styles tend to look better on thin.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Are ideas of beauty are almost identical to Græco-Roman views, which cannot have been influenced by the fashion industry. With the exception of a few brief periods, western culture has valued being thin for millenia.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
This is certainly not my understanding. As I recall, in most Greek art (for example) the male organ is itsy-bitsy.
Way too much tummy on most of those Venuses (Veni?) I would fit right in with Rubens or even Titian.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
*Grin* I just figured out that I like the Venus(es) because most of them have long torsos like me.
AJ
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
A Google image search of “greek statue” does not seem to support your claim. Even the “slim” figures are rounded with no bones visible.
The Kiss isn't exactly a greek statute, its a Rodin
But yes, Greek ideals of beauty are definitely different from those today, though they certainly have a significant (I almost wrote 'heavy') influence.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Good point. I thought it looked familiar. Blame Google, though, I just linked 'em.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Well, if we really want to talk long-term, multi-millennial aesthetics, I think we shouldn't fail to look at prehistory Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yay! It's the the Venus of Willendorf. I was hoping she'd show up!
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Fatness tends to be valued in socities were famine is likely but not in wealthier ones, for obvious reasons.
"the male organ is itsy-bitsy." In most instances, it is actualy missing, having been vandalized.
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
It's really gross the amount of airbrushing they do to photos in magazines. I thought they would do it for close ups of faces to make their pores unnoticable and their skin flawless, which is kind of stupid because everyone has pores and skin that isn't the same color all the way through. But then I saw a TV show, I think it was, about what they do to photos. Not just airbrushing skin, but those things mph mentioned too. It's amazing... I couldn't imagine being a star and feeling very self-conscious making an appearance IRL and don't look anything like my photos in Cosmo.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:erso, sorry, I parsed your post to be speaking in the hypothetical and didn't realize you had seen the ad.
It's alright (also, it's eros, or eroso, why does everyone always omit the first damn "o"? ). I've actually never seen the print ad; I see the Dove commercial on TV.
quote:What is unattractive about them? They are not even "fat". They are probably size 8 or 10. Nothing morbidly unhealthy about them.
Well, several things:
1) Like I said, the ad is purely cosmetic. It takes a pretty significant amount of physical beauty to get me to label you as attractive if I have nothing else to judge you by.
2) Call it what you want, but I'm attracted primarily to height-weight proportional women. Now that I think about it, I've never gone out (or whatever) with anyone larger than a size...6? Before anyone asks; no, this isn't a conscious choice.
3) I'm young, and I'm much more easily attracted to people my age; the people in the ad ranged from my age to what appeared to be their 60's.
4) Partly because of where I grew up (Hawaii, with its ridiculously high Asian American pop density), I'm typically much more attracted to east Asian features.
Please note that my observation was not directed individually at every person in the ad, but rather at the ad generally.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:"the male organ is itsy-bitsy." In most instances, it is actualy missing, having been vandalized.
Actually, sort of the opposite of vandalized since it wasn't Vandals, but Romans (specifically the Pope) who ordered the mutilation.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Ha-ha, funny. Theodosius I was, in fact, the great vadal, although Christians in general are largely to blame.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: 2) Call it what you want, but I'm attracted primarily to height-weight proportional women. Now that I think about it, I've never gone out (or whatever) with anyone larger than a size...6? Before anyone asks; no, this isn't a conscious choice.
Someone who wears a size 8 or 10 is height-weight proportional.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan:
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: 2) Call it what you want, but I'm attracted primarily to height-weight proportional women. Now that I think about it, I've never gone out (or whatever) with anyone larger than a size...6? Before anyone asks; no, this isn't a conscious choice.
Someone who wears a size 8 or 10 is height-weight proportional.
How do you know, without knowing how tall they are?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I didn't drop the first o, I typo'd the last two letters. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Bzzzzt! The scrawny models are real people too.
Bzzz! Incorrect (at least in excess of 80% (of print ads in magazines and billboards and the like), according to a friend of mine "in the biz")!
They are airbrushed people.
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
I was curious to see the women in the Dove commercial that Erosomniac believes are unattractive.
In case anyone else was interested.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
While I don't recognize faces, the ones on TV have at least two or three different people, one of them appearing to be about 40, and one of them at least 60.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Those women do not appear "large" to me. They appear to be normal sized people instead of model sized people.
Honestly, if you are incapable of finding any of those women attractive, there's something wrong with you.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
I remember reading Marie Osmond's book about her postpartum depression, and she showed pictures in it that they'd taken after she had her baby, for publicity purposes for her show. She showed the same set of pictures twice: one set as she really looked, and one set as they were published. They'd airbrushed out any bumps or lumps and airbrushed her waist and legs (and face too, I think) to look about 20 pounds thinner than she was.
She wanted women to see that what they were actually comparing themselves to was imaginary.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
If I were military regulation weight I would probably still be a 12 or 14. I'm taller than average, but no giant.
The size 2, 0, or (God help us all) -2 model is a product of misogynism in my opinion.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Those women do not appear "large" to me. They appear to be normal sized people instead of model sized people.
Honestly, if you are incapable of finding any of those women attractive, there's something wrong with you.
Seconded. In fact, I think these are very attractive women, just not stick figures. Were I single, I'd hit it.
Eros, man, I'd rethink your perspective on women, or you're going to be very unhappy when your wife hits thirty.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lalo:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Those women do not appear "large" to me. They appear to be normal sized people instead of model sized people.
Honestly, if you are incapable of finding any of those women attractive, there's something wrong with you.
Seconded. In fact, I think these are very attractive women, just not stick figures. Were I single, I'd hit it.
Eros, man, I'd rethink your perspective on women, or you're going to be very unhappy when your wife hits thirty.
Out of curiousity, did either of you read my response to kmbboots, wherein I explained why I'm not attracted to these women?
It sure doesn't sound like it. I'd appreciate you reading what I posted about my reasoning before you make horribly incorrect assumptions about it.
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
Well, Eros is indicating the women he was referring to are not the ladies in this shot. He hasn't said what he thinks of these ladies. Oh, I said this before I saw his last post.
Isn't there a difference between "attractive" and "attracted to"?
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
I have to admit that most of those women are not atractive, although this, ironicly, has more to do with their skin than their size (many of them look like they have had too many sun-bathing sessions.)
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
Most of the world is not Scandinavian, thank you very much.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Out of curiousity, did either of you read my response to kmbboots, wherein I explained why I'm not attracted to these women?
Oh, I had read it.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Out of curiousity, did either of you read my response to kmbboots, wherein I explained why I'm not attracted to these women?
Oh, I had read it.
I give up.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Most of the world is not Scandinavian, thank you very much, but people who are, in fact, of Northern European descent need to take steps to preserve their skin. I am currently ashen white even though this is South Texas in July. Too many days spent outside with less than enough sunscreen will probably scar me, but less than many of these women.
Let me rephrase this: the natural skin color of people of German, Scandanavian and British descent is creamy white, not red or tan.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Call it what you want, but I'm attracted primarily to height-weight proportional women. Now that I think about it, I've never gone out (or whatever) with anyone larger than a size...6?
quote:Partly because of where I grew up (Hawaii, with its ridiculously high Asian American pop density), I'm typically much more attracted to east Asian features.
There is nothing wrong with saying "I am generally more attracted to really thin women" or "I am generally more attracted to women with East Asian features."
There is something, well, maybe not wrong, but certainly sad, when you say "I am incapable of being attracted to women who are not extremely thin" or "I am incapable of being attracted to women who do not have East Asian features."
[ July 12, 2006, 10:57 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Let me rephrase this: the natural skin color of people of German, Scandanavian and British descent is creamy white, not red or tan.
Out of the six women, the only two that look like they might have done much suntanning are the second and the last one.
The first and third appear to have naturally darker skin, and the fourth and fifth have skin tone that probably is not dependent on suntanning.
At maximum, only half of those women suntan. I seriously doubt that #1, #3, or #4 suntan.
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
I'll put in my vote for number five being pretty close to natural skin color, because I am naturally that color sans sun.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Porter, I'm having deja vu. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I am almost completely of British Isle and Scandanavian descent, and the skin color of my arms and face (the parts that get sun when I'm outside) are closest to the last one.
The parts of my body which never get the sun are white white white like #4.
I never suntan. The sun I get is from working in the garden, mowing the lawn, riding my bicycle, and the like.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Porter, I'm having deja vu.
Yeah. I didn't go out of my way to have this conversation again. I promise!
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Everyone should also realize that if eros is primarily attracted to East Asian women, and grew up in Hawaii, the women he grew up with are probably very peite. So when he's saying a size 6, on a woman who's 5'2" or 5'3", that's a lot different than on a 5'6" (Me!) or 5'10" woman. A 5'10" woman who's a size 6 is really thin. When I've been size 6, I've been firmly on the skinny side of normal, but not model slim. A 5'2" woman who's size 6, while still slender, is much closer to "normal." And if that's the kind of woman he's attracted to, I'm not surprised that none of the women in the ad are particularly attractive to him.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Oh, I know. But I do enjoy spectating more than participating, I think. It's a lot less rigorous.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Honestly, if you are incapable of finding any of those women attractive, there's something wrong with you.
quote:There is something wrong when you say "I am incapable of being attracted to women who are not extremely thin" or "I am incapable of being attracted to women who do not have East Asian features."
Who appointed you the authority to determine what is and is not wrong with someone?
People have different tastes. Some people are incapable of being attracted to individuals of a certain race. Or a certain gender. Or a certain hair color. Or a certain height. Or thousands of other reasons.
If he likes thin women, that's his choice, and quite frankly it's none of your business.
I can't relate to his tastes, as at least two or three of those women I find attractive (possibly four). But I certainly can't tell him there's something wrong with him.
Edit: Darn editing rendering my post largely irrelevant! Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:Originally posted by Lalo:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Those women do not appear "large" to me. They appear to be normal sized people instead of model sized people.
Honestly, if you are incapable of finding any of those women attractive, there's something wrong with you.
Seconded. In fact, I think these are very attractive women, just not stick figures. Were I single, I'd hit it.
Eros, man, I'd rethink your perspective on women, or you're going to be very unhappy when your wife hits thirty.
Out of curiousity, did either of you read my response to kmbboots, wherein I explained why I'm not attracted to these women?
It sure doesn't sound like it. I'd appreciate you reading what I posted about my reasoning before you make horribly incorrect assumptions about it.
Whoa, fella, I meant it as banter. But if you want to take it point by point, I don't think it was unreasonable for me to believe you didn't find these women attractive:
quote:1) Like I said, the ad is purely cosmetic. It takes a pretty significant amount of physical beauty to get me to label you as attractive if I have nothing else to judge you by.
2) Call it what you want, but I'm attracted primarily to height-weight proportional women. Now that I think about it, I've never gone out (or whatever) with anyone larger than a size...6? Before anyone asks; no, this isn't a conscious choice.
3) I'm young, and I'm much more easily attracted to people my age; the people in the ad ranged from my age to what appeared to be their 60's.
4) Partly because of where I grew up (Hawaii, with its ridiculously high Asian American pop density), I'm typically much more attracted to east Asian features.
1) I'd say this is a significant amount of physical beauty. I'm pretty sure our tastes differ, but even if neither of us have girlfriends who look like these women, surely we can acknowledge that they're very pretty?
2) Proportional != tiny. These women are definitely proportional, just not compact -- they're certainly not grossly overweight or large.
3) I don't know how old you are, but these women look to range from 20's-30's. I don't think age is an issue here.
4) No problem if you're attracted to East Asian features -- I prefer darker skin, myself, and nobody'll criticize either of us for our own tastes. But though I'm strongly attracted to dark-skinned women, I'm perfectly capable of acknowledging the pale honey in the middle's pretty hot.
That said, heh, I'll stop harassing you -- I didn't know you were touchy on the subject, and I didn't mean to make you uncomfortable. And there's no way I'd question your taste -- I hear there are women (and prison cellmates) out there who find even Frisco attractive, and whatever tastes you have are nothing to these people's depravity.
Posted by Squish (Member # 9191) on :
Edit: This is eros, I'm on Squish's computer and forgot she was logged in.
quote:There is nothing wrong with saying "I am generally more attracted to really thin women" or "I am generally more attracted to women with East Asian features."
There is something, well, maybe not wrong, but certainly sad, when you say "I am incapable of being attracted to women who are not extremely thin" or "I am incapable of being attracted to women who do not have East Asian features."
Good thing I didn't say that then, ne?
quote:2) Proportional != tiny. These women are definitely proportional, just not compact -- they're certainly not grossly overweight or large.
Well, proportional is a purely subjective term, but if you want to treat it objectively, we can refer to our good 'ol pal the BMI, which indicates a woman 5'6" with B cup breasts and a size 6 body is obese.
quote:3) I don't know how old you are, but these women look to range from 20's-30's. I don't think age is an issue here.
I've mentioned twice in posts between the one I directed you to and this one in which I indicated that the women I saw included women in their 40s and a woman who was at least 60.
quote:4) No problem if you're attracted to East Asian features -- I prefer darker skin, myself, and nobody'll criticize either of us for our own tastes. But though I'm strongly attracted to dark-skinned women, I'm perfectly capable of acknowledging the pale honey in the middle's pretty hot.
The combination (where applicable) is why I do not find these women attractive. Maybe I should be clearer: just because I find them unattractive doesn't mean I think they're ugly or fat, I'm just not attracted to them.
quote:That said, heh, I'll stop harassing you -- I didn't know you were touchy on the subject,
I'm not, and I understand you were trying to be funny so I'm sorry I reacted how I did, but this:
quote:Eros, man, I'd rethink your perspective on women, or you're going to be very unhappy when your wife hits thirty.
Is not funny. Or at least, I don't find it so.
quote:And there's no way I'd question your taste -- I hear there are women (and prison cellmates) out there who find even Frisco attractive, and whatever tastes you have are nothing to these people's depravity.
See, by the time I'd started posting with any sort of frequency here roughly a year ago, Frisco barely posted anymore, but was mentioned in a thread that I can't remember anymore, so all I can think of when I think of who Frisco is is ketchupqueen fantasizing about him with grapeseed oil.
And those tassle pictures. Oi.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Not much has changed....just that the tassels are a little closer to the floor these days.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote:Originally posted by Squish: Well, proportional is a purely subjective term, but if you want to treat it objectively, we can refer to our good 'ol pal the BMI, which indicates a woman 5'6" with B cup breasts and a size 6 body is obese.
I'd like to see you provide proof for this claim.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan:
quote:Originally posted by Squish: Well, proportional is a purely subjective term, but if you want to treat it objectively, we can refer to our good 'ol pal the BMI, which indicates a woman 5'6" with B cup breasts and a size 6 body is obese.
I'd like to see you provide proof for this claim.
Come here and measure my friend, who is the girl described and has a BMI index score of 31, which is "obese."
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
Then she must have a huge amount of muscle, because I've been searching on Google and the BMIs for girls who are around 5'6 and wear near a size 6 (or even a size 10) have been nowhere near obese.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I think his point was how messed up the BMI can be at times.
According to the BMI I should be 156 lbs. Even right after AIT in the Army I was never that low. My lowers was 158, and if I wore a med tee shirt you could count all my ribs. I also tested out at 13% body fat that time, and had to be tape tested every single PT test for 3 years because of those charts.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
At 5'6" and size 8 or 10 (granted, a whole bunch of years ago), according to the charts I was obese. Every single doctor I ever saw who took my weight told me to go on a diet. Not one of them bothered with skin caliper fat tests or any other fitness tests or in any other way checked me out to see if I really was overweight - it was always based on weight and height alone.
One year in phys. ed., we had to do the skin caliper thingies, and I was at around 20-22% body fat, not the 30-35% that the chart assumed I was.
I was very strong. I could out-leg press every guy in my grade by well over a hundred pounds, much to their shame.
I have a cousin who's very much the same as I was - freakishly strong, very dense, same as my brothers.
Point being that yeah, those stupid charts are stupid and don't work for everyone.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
At 6'1, 208 lbs, I'm considered overweight according to the BMI chart. It doesn't matter that I go to the gym every day, or that most of my mass is muscle. The chart says I'm overweight, and the chart is all-knowing...
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
They just do a really bad job handling people with any amount of lean muscle mass. I know several football players at my college who were off the charts in the BMI, yet could easily have been featured on an Abercrombie poster.
Bodyfat percentage is a much better way of determine whether or not a person is obese. It's just not as simple and accessible as BMI.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:At 6'1, 208 lbs, I'm considered overweight according to the BMI chart. It doesn't matter that I go to the gym every day, or that most of my mass is muscle. The chart says I'm overweight, and the chart is all-knowing...
I'm not particularly fond of the BMI myself, but it must be noted that the chart was designed for those living a sedentary lifestyle. That means not going to the gym. That means not having loads of muscles.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: I'm not particularly fond of the BMI myself, but it must be noted that the chart was designed for those living a sedentary lifestyle. That means not going to the gym. That means not having loads of muscles.
I'm aware of that, and was posting somewhat facetiously. The problem is that the BMI is commonly misconstrued and applied in an improper manner, even by doctors.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Good thing I didn't say that then, ne?
Well then, I completely misunderstood you and don't know what you did say. I apologize.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:Well, proportional is a purely subjective term, but if you want to treat it objectively, we can refer to our good 'ol pal the BMI, which indicates a woman 5'6" with B cup breasts and a size 6 body is obese.
__________________
OK. Now that I am over my initial shock, what are you trying to say here? Do you actually believe that any girl of those proportions can be considered obese, or even overweight? Your example is one that shows the limitations of the BMI rather than proving your point by any official standard.
Your friend would have to weigh at least 186 lbs to qualify as obese at 5'6". To be a B cup and fit into size 6 clothes, she must have some amazing lean mass! She obviously is nowhere near overweighth, much less obese.
You obviously prefer skinny girls. But don't insult the rest of us by describing anyone size 6 as obese.
[ July 13, 2006, 11:09 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I hate the BMI. Even when I was a size 6 I was overweight by that scale.
I don't know what they base the pediatric height/weight scale on, but it must also be on kids who are mostly sedentary because my daughter who is a gymnast is 14 pounds over the average weight for her age and she is almost an inch shorter than the average height - I don't know how much overweight that would make her but I know my doctor said he completely disregarded the charts in a kid like her. It would be hard to be in better shape than Emily at age 8, she is hard packed muscle and put all of us to shame on the trip to DC. When we were sweating and huffing after a long walk she was fresh as a daisy and practically bounded up the stairs to the Lincoln Memorial. This is a kid who is an athlete, eats wonderfully (one night at a restaurant the server couldn't believe it when she ordered grilled chicken and steamed broccoli and ate every bite) and has excellent cardiovascular health and muscle tone. And she's overweight, according to those stupid charts.
I really wish we could come up with a better way to measure things in kids, because they start picking up on messages very quickly. My six year old asked me if she was fat not long ago. She's six years old! And, by the way, she still wears a size 4 toddler so no, she isn't fat in any stretch of the imagination she's very petite. Kids are already bombarded with the "thin is in" message and then we take them to a pediatrician who if he wasn't as wonderful and observant as mine might slip to the mom in the kid's hearing "oh by the way, she's fourteen pounds overweight by my chart, so watch that." What kind of message would we be sending Emily if we told her she was overweight? I've made sure not to EVER mention it to her and my doctor didn't talk to me about the disparity in the charts in her hearing.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius:
"the male organ is itsy-bitsy." In most instances, it is actualy missing, having been vandalized.
Actually, I was refering to the figures on Greek pottery. I can tell the difference between itsy-bitsy and smashed off.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:You obviously prefer skinny girls. But don't insult the rest of us by describing anyone size 6 as obese.
I don't think he was saying that. He was saying that a friend of his with those dimensions was classified as obese by the Body Mass Index.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:OK. Now that I am over my initial shock, what are you trying to say here? Do you actually believe that any girl of those proportions can be considered obese, or even overweight? Your example is one that shows the limitations of the BMI rather than proving your point by any official standard.
Exactly. My point was that height-weight proportional is a purely subjective term, as proven by how ridiculous the standard objective scale (BMI) is. I'm sorry if this wasn't clear.
quote:Your friend would have to weigh at least 186 lbs to qualify as obese at 5'6". To be a B cup and fit into size 6 clothes, she must have some amazing lean mass! She obviously is nowhere near overweighth, much less obese.
You obviously prefer skinny girls. But don't insult the rest of us by describing anyone size 6 as obese.
What mph said.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Huh. I guess I'll have to hear his clarification, because I totally thought he was using this as evidence to justify his definition of proportional meaning girls size 6 and skinnier by saying, "See? The chart says she's obese."
Since the evidence is totally faulty, I was trying to explain that it was a poor way to make his case. It didn't occur to me that he *wasn't* trying to make the above point.
Edit: OK, clarification given.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
He just clarified it for you. Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
You missed my edit.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
'Cuz it wasn't there when I wrote my post.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm not sure what the outlying samples is supposed to prove. Since it is a chart, of course it doesn't give a good ideas for 100% of humans.
I'll bet, though, that 90% of the people that are overweight or obese according to the BMI chart are, in fact, overweight or obese.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
quote:Your friend would have to weigh at least 186 lbs to qualify as obese at 5'6". To be a B cup and fit into size 6 clothes, she must have some amazing lean mass! She obviously is nowhere near overweighth, much less obese.
That's different - way higher - than the charts I saw way back when. Back then, from what I recall, the charts indicated obesity at 145 lbs plus for 5'6" females.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Call it what you want, but I'm attracted primarily to height-weight proportional women. Now that I think about it, I've never gone out (or whatever) with anyone larger than a size...6?
quote:Partly because of where I grew up (Hawaii, with its ridiculously high Asian American pop density), I'm typically much more attracted to east Asian features.
There is nothing wrong with saying "I am generally more attracted to really thin women" or "I am generally more attracted to women with East Asian features."
There is something, well, maybe not wrong, but certainly sad, when you say "I am incapable of being attracted to women who are not extremely thin" or "I am incapable of being attracted to women who do not have East Asian features."
I know you apologized for misinterpretting this already, but I thought I would explain: the key phrases were "attracted primarily" and "typically much more attracted," which to me equate more with "generally more attracted" than with "incapable of being attracted to women who are not."
Edit to add: Hope this further clarifies where I stand on this. I'm picky, but I'm not a complete ass. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
According to the chart I just Googled, bev is right about the numbers. And I just don't see how a woman who is 5'6" and 186 lbs could fit into a size 6. I'm 5'6" and when I weighed 186 I wore a 14. Certianly percentage fat vs muscle would affect that, but that much??
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Quid, wow! According to that, I am currently obese. I beg to differ.
Whoever thought up the chart your doctor had was just plain wrong.
Edit: just having checked the chart, could it have been overweight rather than obese? The terms mean different things. I'd be willing to bet that erosomniac was using "obese" in place of "overweight" as well.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Edit: just having checked the chart, could it have been overweight rather than obese? The terms mean different things. I'd be willing to bet that erosomniac was using "obese" in place of "overweight" as well.
<shrug> "Obese" is the classification she was told by the trainer. I was more than a little surprised, myself.
Also, I realized I've been quoting the wrong height; she's 5'5", not 5'6". My bad.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Huh. Maybe the trainer is biased about what is normal? He might use the terms interchangably, to the disservice of those he works with.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by beverly: Huh. Maybe the trainer is biased about what is normal? He might use the terms interchangably, to the disservice of those he works with.
That's certainly possible; "obese" definitely has a much more negative ring to it than "overweight" does, and if I was told I was obese (and if I were overweight, so it might even possibly be believable), I'd get much more worried about it.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
"Are you gonna take me home tonight? Ah, down beside that red firelight"
That song just came on my playlist. It reminded me of this thread.. Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
BMI says I'm slightly underweight. But y'know, when people say "size," I always wonder if they mean pants or dress. Because I don't know about you, but my pants size and my dress size are totally different.
-pH
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
No, bev, it was definitely obese. Yeah, it really skewed my self-image being told that. Now, of course, I know the doc and the charts were wonky, but back then?
Oh - one other thing - I realized after I went to bed that it wasn't a BMI chart. It was a height/weight chart with columns for fine, medium, and big boned, and anything above that was labelled obese. But really, I think those charts are even worse. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
As I think about it, I could see having obesity of most kinds being defined as a mental disorder. If we can commit people against their will for anorexia at the extreme stages, why can't we lock up a 400 pound diabetic?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)