Fat shaming can kill?
Replies
-
Telling someone they need to "cope better" isn't a magical cure all that will instantly change someone's outlook.
Many purple have formative issues that have taken years to develop. People have posted here about how their eating habits, perceptions of being overweight and their subsequent harsh treatment by others has impacted them.
No, we can't necessarily hope for a quick increase in the manners of other humans, any more than we can expect someone to immediately start coping better. What we can do is show empathy and compassion, and treat others with the dignity and respect that we would want for ourselves. And hope that ethic of care helps the overweight build resilience and get to a healthy place and the cruel learn from the good example.
I'm not overweight anymore, but that doesn't mean I'm not weighed down by something else. We all are in one way or another.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Telling someone they need to "cope better" isn't a magical cure all that will instantly change someone's outlook.
Many purple have formative issues that have taken years to develop. People have posted here about how their eating habits, perceptions of being overweight and their subsequent harsh treatment by others has impacted them.
No, we can't necessarily hope for a quick increase in the manners of other humans, any more than we can expect someone to immediately start coping better. What we can do is show empathy and compassion, and treat others with the dignity and respect that we would want for ourselves. And hope that ethic of care helps the overweight build resilience and get to a healthy place and the cruel learn from the good example.
I'm not overweight anymore, but that doesn't mean I'm not weighed down by something else. We all are in one way or another.
Exactly.
Part of the problem for some overweight people is that overeating, or just eating in general, is their coping mechanism. If I had to hazard a guess, that would be why for many the whole "shame the behavior out of you" aspect doesn't work. Instead, it leads to secret eating.
I don't think anyone is arguing that this is a good or particularly effective coping strategy, but when it is the coping strategy, fat shaming could lead someone further down the path toward obesity-related diseases and/or early death. I don't think it's a huge stretch.0 -
Telling someone they need to "cope better" isn't a magical cure all that will instantly change someone's outlook.
Many purple have formative issues that have taken years to develop. People have posted here about how their eating habits, perceptions of being overweight and their subsequent harsh treatment by others has impacted them.
No, we can't necessarily hope for a quick increase in the manners of other humans, any more than we can expect someone to immediately start coping better. What we can do is show empathy and compassion, and treat others with the dignity and respect that we would want for ourselves. And hope that ethic of care helps the overweight build resilience and get to a healthy place and the cruel learn from the good example.
I'm not overweight anymore, but that doesn't mean I'm not weighed down by something else. We all are in one way or another.
@Pyschgrrl has encapsulated my feelings on this matter very eloquently....Degeullo you have your opinions to which you are entitled....I have mine.
0 -
If the special snowflakes feel hurt when the mean people are nasty, they do. I am a special snowflake and while I generally don't care, there was one time I was very hurt. I don't forget that. I can't forget that. I was blindsided during one of my happier moments, so it stays with me.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Whether there's an alternative doesn't really change the underlying issue, does it?
All kinds of things. You avoid people in general, particularly those that shame you. You hide your eating / pretend to eat less, and then binge eat when not around other people, particularly when out of the presence of those you know.DeguelloTex wrote: »
How do you hide being fat?DeguelloTex wrote: »
How does being subjected to shame make you want to maintain the status for which you are being shamed? That sounds more like rationalization than causation.jennifer_417 wrote: »Look, most of us have experienced fat shaming, so we know it's bad. But at best, we're preaching to the choir, and at worst, we're promoting a victim mentality that that allows people to justify their obesity. Yeah, fat shaming does make people want to stay fat. It did me. But I made the choice to overcome that, and everyone else has that choice, too.
Most psychological studies on shame show it is appallingly poor at changing the behavior it targets. What it tends to do is drive people to hide the behavior from others.
I mean, we've both been on the board long enough to know that plenty of people write one thing in the diary, and complain about how they can't lose weight, showing others proudly how hard they've tried and seeking praise for their low state calories while still frustrated about not losing weight - and I'm not talking about people that haven't been told to use a food scale.
Though honestly, I'm not sure what the semantics of what hiding would look like - I use the terminology to speak about shaming in general.
To put it in other words, when someone shames you for something, you don't simply feel shame for what you do or what you are - you feel shame because of what that person said about what you do or are. Now, there are clearly two ways to avoid the punishment - avoid the person / situations, or avoid the behavior. One of those carries the negative that you have to actually give up something enjoyable (eating in this case) and the other you just have to avoid people (certain or all).
Could some people be more liable to perceive being shamed because it is self reported? Sure. Does it really mean that's what is causing the health effect? Well given Sultin refers to clinic experiments that show short term effects on people, and says this is just epidemiological data to try to gauge that impact, I'd say at least some portion of it has to be purely about the experience and not just being a sensitive snowflake. I don't see how much it changes the recommendation - I'd say it points to less shaming either way. What is the alternative? Just accepting some people are sensitive and we're ok with them dying prematurely for it? Giving people counseling to toughen up?
Granting that some portion is about the experience itself, it still doesn't mean that the results aren't overstated as a result of the particular kind of sensitive snowflake who self-reports mean people.
The recommendation is fine. I recommend that people commit fewer crimes. Let's see how depending on the general good nature of human beings works out for us. In the meantime, I'll carry a gun and not give a dingo's kidney whether someone thinks I'm too fat, too tall, too insensitive, or too whatever.
I don't ask you to care that I was hurt. Don't want pity and wouldn't expect any compassion. I would appreciate it, though, if you didn't act as if it's somehow a character flaw of mine that I was hurt.
While it would be nice if we could all make ourselves never be hurt by those who are trying so hard to wound us, it's unrealistic. The "special snowflakes" comment is unfair...as if we are at fault for being so sensitive and allowing ourselves to be hurt.
While it is true that we are better than the mean people and really shouldn't allow ourselves to be injured by the comments of people who are beneath us...sometimes it hurts. We feel what we feel.
You needn't care about anyone else's feelings, but you also need not blame us for feeling hurt when someone tried to hurt us.
Don't kick people when they're down, you know?0 -
I don't think anyone is asking people who have been fat shamed to pretend like it didn't happen, or to not be hurt by it. At least I'm not. That's not compassion at all.
I think the problem is when they allow it to cause them to not feel responsible for their own decisions, and they justify their own bad behavior, because they've been hurt, thus perpetuating an unhealthy cycle.
It is hard to overcome fat shaming and our culture's opinion towards being overweight and all the negative experiences that are generally universal to that? OMG YES IT IS. But it doesn't mean we shouldn't try.0 -
Were the subjects of this study Americans? Just wondering if this finding would be the same in any other country, given that shaming people to conform to a norm or ideal or meet a minimum expectation, or shaming/punishing people for deviation from it, is a pretty widespread practice in societies (which also makes me a little skeptical of the claim that the practice of shaming (irrespective of shaming being right or wrong) is ineffectual...)
0 -
Lourdesong wrote: »Were the subjects of this study Americans? Just wondering if this finding would be the same in any other country, given that shaming people to conform to a norm or ideal or meet a minimum expectation, or shaming/punishing people for deviation from it, is a pretty widespread practice in societies (which also makes me a little skeptical of the claim that the practice of shaming (irrespective of shaming being right or wrong) is ineffectual...)
It might be widespread, but it doesn't mean it's effective everywhere. My guess would be that it has to do with cultural norms about whether it is effective or not. Japan sometimes comes up when this is discussed since there is heavy pressure not to be overweight.0 -
@DeguelloTex , I guess I understand your overall point, but not some of your initial questions. Were you saying that if I was fat shamed, because I'm healthy and thin now or otherwise have a good handle on my life, if I were asked in a questionnaire I'd be less likely to report said fat shaming? IMO, this would mean one or two things: the non-reporters understand what events met the criteria for fat shaming and simply chose to lie (why??), or have categorized fewer things as fat shaming. The latter seems equally unlikely to me, to be honest, since I'm assuming the study must have attempted to define what constitutes fat shaming as part of the questionnaire. Now I wonder if we could have access to said questionnaire?0
-
I didn't say it was magic, though, did I? Or that it would be instant? Or that it would be easy? It is, however, reasonably within your control. What others say to you, well, not so much.Telling someone they need to "cope better" isn't a magical cure all that will instantly change someone's outlook.
Many purple have formative issues that have taken years to develop. People have posted here about how their eating habits, perceptions of being overweight and their subsequent harsh treatment by others has impacted them.
No, we can't necessarily hope for a quick increase in the manners of other humans, any more than we can expect someone to immediately start coping better. What we can do is show empathy and compassion, and treat others with the dignity and respect that we would want for ourselves. And hope that ethic of care helps the overweight build resilience and get to a healthy place and the cruel learn from the good example.
I'm not overweight anymore, but that doesn't mean I'm not weighed down by something else. We all are in one way or another.
So, as between two courses of action, one of which where you have some control and one where you don't, which seems a more feasible solution?
0 -
No, I'm saying some people perceive -- or exaggerate or even create -- slights that other people don't.@DeguelloTex , I guess I understand your overall point, but not some of your initial questions. Were you saying that if I was fat shamed, because I'm healthy and thin now or otherwise have a good handle on my life, if I were asked in a questionnaire I'd be less likely to report said fat shaming? IMO, this would mean one or two things: the non-reporters understand what events met the criteria for fat shaming and simply chose to lie (why??), or have categorized fewer things as fat shaming. The latter seems equally unlikely to me, to be honest, since I'm assuming the study must have attempted to define what constitutes fat shaming as part of the questionnaire. Now I wonder if we could have access to said questionnaire?
My family tells me that whenever we go out, people point and stare at me. I very rarely notice this. Who's more likely to get wound up and stressed out, someone who notices every theoretically discriminatory thing and gets all wound up about it or someone who doesn't notice or particularly remember or get wound up about it? Now, which is more likely to self-report these actions?
So, no, I don't think the latter is unlikely at all. Look into micro-aggression and the ludicrous things some people consider aggression and discrimination. People who go through life looking for reasons to be offended will surely find them in abundance. And will be pretty likely, imo, to take every opportunity to tell others about these actions. And I don't think it's much of a stretch to imagine that such people lead relatively more stressful lives.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
No, I'm saying some people perceive -- or exaggerate or even create -- slights that other people don't.@DeguelloTex , I guess I understand your overall point, but not some of your initial questions. Were you saying that if I was fat shamed, because I'm healthy and thin now or otherwise have a good handle on my life, if I were asked in a questionnaire I'd be less likely to report said fat shaming? IMO, this would mean one or two things: the non-reporters understand what events met the criteria for fat shaming and simply chose to lie (why??), or have categorized fewer things as fat shaming. The latter seems equally unlikely to me, to be honest, since I'm assuming the study must have attempted to define what constitutes fat shaming as part of the questionnaire. Now I wonder if we could have access to said questionnaire?
My family tells me that whenever we go out, people point and stare at me. I very rarely notice this. Who's more likely to get wound up and stressed out, someone who notices every theoretically discriminatory thing and gets all wound up about it or someone who doesn't notice or particularly remember or get wound up about it? Now, which is more likely to self-report these actions?
So, no, I don't think the latter is unlikely at all. Look into micro-aggression and the ludicrous things some people consider aggression and discrimination. People who go through life looking for reasons to be offended will surely find them in abundance. And will be pretty likely, imo, to take every opportunity to tell others about these actions. And I don't think it's much of a stretch to imagine that such people lead relatively more stressful lives.
Interesting. I would say the sample size might make the study robust to this possibility, though. If there are that many people showing this severe negative effect to perceived fat shaming/discrimination, it may still be worth either further investigation or a fix of some sort
And to your example, though, I've seen one or two posts from you where you have noticed some of that stuff, no? I would assume that if it happens at any kind of significant frequency, the affected individuals are bound to notice at some point, sensitive or not0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
I didn't say it was magic, though, did I? Or that it would be instant? Or that it would be easy? It is, however, reasonably within your control. What others say to you, well, not so much.Telling someone they need to "cope better" isn't a magical cure all that will instantly change someone's outlook.
Many purple have formative issues that have taken years to develop. People have posted here about how their eating habits, perceptions of being overweight and their subsequent harsh treatment by others has impacted them.
No, we can't necessarily hope for a quick increase in the manners of other humans, any more than we can expect someone to immediately start coping better. What we can do is show empathy and compassion, and treat others with the dignity and respect that we would want for ourselves. And hope that ethic of care helps the overweight build resilience and get to a healthy place and the cruel learn from the good example.
I'm not overweight anymore, but that doesn't mean I'm not weighed down by something else. We all are in one way or another.
So, as between two courses of action, one of which where you have some control and one where you don't, which seems a more feasible solution?
Why can't we have both? Profit centers and policy makers will often look towards successful sub populations, and try to implement what has made them successful on a wider scale. Those taking charge of their life on a personal level IMO are potentially feeding the data that could help the individuals that are in a position to implement changes that could affect more than just the individual0 -
Exactly. If you took two groups, one skinny and one fat, and fat shamed them both equally which group would have more health related issues from obesity? Also discrimination is the wrong word to use here. It isn't discrimination when you point out that someone is making unhealthy choices.
No it's not "discrimination," when you shame someone for their body size or "point out" what you think they're doing wrong. It's cruelty.
It's also making uninformed assumptions about someone else's physical condition. Only that person and his (or her) doctor know why he is obese. He may be making "unhealthy choices," or he may take a medication that shuts off the neurotransmitter that tells the brain it is full. He may have a hormonal condition that lowers metabolism and makes it hard to gain muscle mass. He may have psychiatric problems that cause him to over eat. He may have joint or heart problems that prevent him from exercising.
Last of all he may have simply decided that he is so miserable when dieting that he has chosen to eat what he likes even if it means a slightly shorter life. This is a valid choice for some people, just as some people think the fun of certain sports or hobbies like motorcycle riding are worth the risk. The point is that it is their life and no one else's.
0 -
Yes, I wrote in my post that I very rarely notice it, which means sometimes I do. But rarely. So, even if I felt like reporting, I'd have 1/1000 the incidents of a more sensitive person.DeguelloTex wrote: »
No, I'm saying some people perceive -- or exaggerate or even create -- slights that other people don't.@DeguelloTex , I guess I understand your overall point, but not some of your initial questions. Were you saying that if I was fat shamed, because I'm healthy and thin now or otherwise have a good handle on my life, if I were asked in a questionnaire I'd be less likely to report said fat shaming? IMO, this would mean one or two things: the non-reporters understand what events met the criteria for fat shaming and simply chose to lie (why??), or have categorized fewer things as fat shaming. The latter seems equally unlikely to me, to be honest, since I'm assuming the study must have attempted to define what constitutes fat shaming as part of the questionnaire. Now I wonder if we could have access to said questionnaire?
My family tells me that whenever we go out, people point and stare at me. I very rarely notice this. Who's more likely to get wound up and stressed out, someone who notices every theoretically discriminatory thing and gets all wound up about it or someone who doesn't notice or particularly remember or get wound up about it? Now, which is more likely to self-report these actions?
So, no, I don't think the latter is unlikely at all. Look into micro-aggression and the ludicrous things some people consider aggression and discrimination. People who go through life looking for reasons to be offended will surely find them in abundance. And will be pretty likely, imo, to take every opportunity to tell others about these actions. And I don't think it's much of a stretch to imagine that such people lead relatively more stressful lives.
Interesting. I would say the sample size might make the study robust to this possibility, though. If there are that many people showing this severe negative effect to perceived fat shaming/discrimination, it may still be worth either further investigation or a fix of some sort
And to your example, though, I've seen one or two posts from you where you have noticed some of that stuff, no? I would assume that if it happens at any kind of significant frequency, the affected individuals are bound to notice at some point, sensitive or not
0 -
I didn't say you can't have both, but only one is within your direct control.DeguelloTex wrote: »
I didn't say it was magic, though, did I? Or that it would be instant? Or that it would be easy? It is, however, reasonably within your control. What others say to you, well, not so much.Telling someone they need to "cope better" isn't a magical cure all that will instantly change someone's outlook.
Many purple have formative issues that have taken years to develop. People have posted here about how their eating habits, perceptions of being overweight and their subsequent harsh treatment by others has impacted them.
No, we can't necessarily hope for a quick increase in the manners of other humans, any more than we can expect someone to immediately start coping better. What we can do is show empathy and compassion, and treat others with the dignity and respect that we would want for ourselves. And hope that ethic of care helps the overweight build resilience and get to a healthy place and the cruel learn from the good example.
I'm not overweight anymore, but that doesn't mean I'm not weighed down by something else. We all are in one way or another.
So, as between two courses of action, one of which where you have some control and one where you don't, which seems a more feasible solution?
Why can't we have both? Profit centers and policy makers will often look towards successful sub populations, and try to implement what has made them successful on a wider scale. Those taking charge of their life on a personal level IMO are potentially feeding the data that could help the individuals that are in a position to implement changes that could affect more than just the individual
If you're counting on eliminating bullies and jerks, you're going to fail.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
I didn't say you can't have both, but only one is within your direct control.DeguelloTex wrote: »
I didn't say it was magic, though, did I? Or that it would be instant? Or that it would be easy? It is, however, reasonably within your control. What others say to you, well, not so much.Telling someone they need to "cope better" isn't a magical cure all that will instantly change someone's outlook.
Many purple have formative issues that have taken years to develop. People have posted here about how their eating habits, perceptions of being overweight and their subsequent harsh treatment by others has impacted them.
No, we can't necessarily hope for a quick increase in the manners of other humans, any more than we can expect someone to immediately start coping better. What we can do is show empathy and compassion, and treat others with the dignity and respect that we would want for ourselves. And hope that ethic of care helps the overweight build resilience and get to a healthy place and the cruel learn from the good example.
I'm not overweight anymore, but that doesn't mean I'm not weighed down by something else. We all are in one way or another.
So, as between two courses of action, one of which where you have some control and one where you don't, which seems a more feasible solution?
Why can't we have both? Profit centers and policy makers will often look towards successful sub populations, and try to implement what has made them successful on a wider scale. Those taking charge of their life on a personal level IMO are potentially feeding the data that could help the individuals that are in a position to implement changes that could affect more than just the individual
If you're counting on eliminating bullies and jerks, you're going to fail.
But a high proportion of people after you might succeed
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Yes, I wrote in my post that I very rarely notice it, which means sometimes I do. But rarely. So, even if I felt like reporting, I'd have 1/1000 the incidents of a more sensitive person.DeguelloTex wrote: »
No, I'm saying some people perceive -- or exaggerate or even create -- slights that other people don't.@DeguelloTex , I guess I understand your overall point, but not some of your initial questions. Were you saying that if I was fat shamed, because I'm healthy and thin now or otherwise have a good handle on my life, if I were asked in a questionnaire I'd be less likely to report said fat shaming? IMO, this would mean one or two things: the non-reporters understand what events met the criteria for fat shaming and simply chose to lie (why??), or have categorized fewer things as fat shaming. The latter seems equally unlikely to me, to be honest, since I'm assuming the study must have attempted to define what constitutes fat shaming as part of the questionnaire. Now I wonder if we could have access to said questionnaire?
My family tells me that whenever we go out, people point and stare at me. I very rarely notice this. Who's more likely to get wound up and stressed out, someone who notices every theoretically discriminatory thing and gets all wound up about it or someone who doesn't notice or particularly remember or get wound up about it? Now, which is more likely to self-report these actions?
So, no, I don't think the latter is unlikely at all. Look into micro-aggression and the ludicrous things some people consider aggression and discrimination. People who go through life looking for reasons to be offended will surely find them in abundance. And will be pretty likely, imo, to take every opportunity to tell others about these actions. And I don't think it's much of a stretch to imagine that such people lead relatively more stressful lives.
Interesting. I would say the sample size might make the study robust to this possibility, though. If there are that many people showing this severe negative effect to perceived fat shaming/discrimination, it may still be worth either further investigation or a fix of some sort
And to your example, though, I've seen one or two posts from you where you have noticed some of that stuff, no? I would assume that if it happens at any kind of significant frequency, the affected individuals are bound to notice at some point, sensitive or not
Article doesn't say anything about frequency, though. Noticing is noticing...
0 -
I didn't say the article did. I said people who notice more, whether it's actually there or not, are more likely to be stressed by it. It's pretty well known that stress is a bad thing for longevity. I'm explaining why I think the article isn't necessarily as important as it's being made out, and not drawing only from the article to do so.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Yes, I wrote in my post that I very rarely notice it, which means sometimes I do. But rarely. So, even if I felt like reporting, I'd have 1/1000 the incidents of a more sensitive person.DeguelloTex wrote: »
No, I'm saying some people perceive -- or exaggerate or even create -- slights that other people don't.@DeguelloTex , I guess I understand your overall point, but not some of your initial questions. Were you saying that if I was fat shamed, because I'm healthy and thin now or otherwise have a good handle on my life, if I were asked in a questionnaire I'd be less likely to report said fat shaming? IMO, this would mean one or two things: the non-reporters understand what events met the criteria for fat shaming and simply chose to lie (why??), or have categorized fewer things as fat shaming. The latter seems equally unlikely to me, to be honest, since I'm assuming the study must have attempted to define what constitutes fat shaming as part of the questionnaire. Now I wonder if we could have access to said questionnaire?
My family tells me that whenever we go out, people point and stare at me. I very rarely notice this. Who's more likely to get wound up and stressed out, someone who notices every theoretically discriminatory thing and gets all wound up about it or someone who doesn't notice or particularly remember or get wound up about it? Now, which is more likely to self-report these actions?
So, no, I don't think the latter is unlikely at all. Look into micro-aggression and the ludicrous things some people consider aggression and discrimination. People who go through life looking for reasons to be offended will surely find them in abundance. And will be pretty likely, imo, to take every opportunity to tell others about these actions. And I don't think it's much of a stretch to imagine that such people lead relatively more stressful lives.
Interesting. I would say the sample size might make the study robust to this possibility, though. If there are that many people showing this severe negative effect to perceived fat shaming/discrimination, it may still be worth either further investigation or a fix of some sort
And to your example, though, I've seen one or two posts from you where you have noticed some of that stuff, no? I would assume that if it happens at any kind of significant frequency, the affected individuals are bound to notice at some point, sensitive or not
Article doesn't say anything about frequency, though. Noticing is noticing...
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
I didn't say the article did. I said people who notice more, whether it's actually there or not, are more likely to be stressed by it. It's pretty well known that stress is a bad thing for longevity. I'm explaining why I think the article isn't necessarily as important as it's being made out, and not drawing only from the article to do so.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Yes, I wrote in my post that I very rarely notice it, which means sometimes I do. But rarely. So, even if I felt like reporting, I'd have 1/1000 the incidents of a more sensitive person.DeguelloTex wrote: »
No, I'm saying some people perceive -- or exaggerate or even create -- slights that other people don't.@DeguelloTex , I guess I understand your overall point, but not some of your initial questions. Were you saying that if I was fat shamed, because I'm healthy and thin now or otherwise have a good handle on my life, if I were asked in a questionnaire I'd be less likely to report said fat shaming? IMO, this would mean one or two things: the non-reporters understand what events met the criteria for fat shaming and simply chose to lie (why??), or have categorized fewer things as fat shaming. The latter seems equally unlikely to me, to be honest, since I'm assuming the study must have attempted to define what constitutes fat shaming as part of the questionnaire. Now I wonder if we could have access to said questionnaire?
My family tells me that whenever we go out, people point and stare at me. I very rarely notice this. Who's more likely to get wound up and stressed out, someone who notices every theoretically discriminatory thing and gets all wound up about it or someone who doesn't notice or particularly remember or get wound up about it? Now, which is more likely to self-report these actions?
So, no, I don't think the latter is unlikely at all. Look into micro-aggression and the ludicrous things some people consider aggression and discrimination. People who go through life looking for reasons to be offended will surely find them in abundance. And will be pretty likely, imo, to take every opportunity to tell others about these actions. And I don't think it's much of a stretch to imagine that such people lead relatively more stressful lives.
Interesting. I would say the sample size might make the study robust to this possibility, though. If there are that many people showing this severe negative effect to perceived fat shaming/discrimination, it may still be worth either further investigation or a fix of some sort
And to your example, though, I've seen one or two posts from you where you have noticed some of that stuff, no? I would assume that if it happens at any kind of significant frequency, the affected individuals are bound to notice at some point, sensitive or not
Article doesn't say anything about frequency, though. Noticing is noticing...
So you're not necessarily disagreeing with the conclusions stated in the article - just that those conclusions were more or less a given, and not necessarily new information? So are you dismissing the findings documented in the article, or explaining a possible reason for those findings?
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Thinking you're being shamed or discriminated against is stressful. Stress shortens lives. Therefore thinking you're being shamed or discriminated shortens lives.DeguelloTex wrote: »
I didn't say the article did. I said people who notice more, whether it's actually there or not, are more likely to be stressed by it. It's pretty well known that stress is a bad thing for longevity. I'm explaining why I think the article isn't necessarily as important as it's being made out, and not drawing only from the article to do so.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Yes, I wrote in my post that I very rarely notice it, which means sometimes I do. But rarely. So, even if I felt like reporting, I'd have 1/1000 the incidents of a more sensitive person.DeguelloTex wrote: »
No, I'm saying some people perceive -- or exaggerate or even create -- slights that other people don't.@DeguelloTex , I guess I understand your overall point, but not some of your initial questions. Were you saying that if I was fat shamed, because I'm healthy and thin now or otherwise have a good handle on my life, if I were asked in a questionnaire I'd be less likely to report said fat shaming? IMO, this would mean one or two things: the non-reporters understand what events met the criteria for fat shaming and simply chose to lie (why??), or have categorized fewer things as fat shaming. The latter seems equally unlikely to me, to be honest, since I'm assuming the study must have attempted to define what constitutes fat shaming as part of the questionnaire. Now I wonder if we could have access to said questionnaire?
My family tells me that whenever we go out, people point and stare at me. I very rarely notice this. Who's more likely to get wound up and stressed out, someone who notices every theoretically discriminatory thing and gets all wound up about it or someone who doesn't notice or particularly remember or get wound up about it? Now, which is more likely to self-report these actions?
So, no, I don't think the latter is unlikely at all. Look into micro-aggression and the ludicrous things some people consider aggression and discrimination. People who go through life looking for reasons to be offended will surely find them in abundance. And will be pretty likely, imo, to take every opportunity to tell others about these actions. And I don't think it's much of a stretch to imagine that such people lead relatively more stressful lives.
Interesting. I would say the sample size might make the study robust to this possibility, though. If there are that many people showing this severe negative effect to perceived fat shaming/discrimination, it may still be worth either further investigation or a fix of some sort
And to your example, though, I've seen one or two posts from you where you have noticed some of that stuff, no? I would assume that if it happens at any kind of significant frequency, the affected individuals are bound to notice at some point, sensitive or not
Article doesn't say anything about frequency, though. Noticing is noticing...
So you're not necessarily disagreeing with the conclusions stated in the article - just that those conclusions were more or less a given, and not necessarily new information? So are you dismissing the findings documented in the article, or explaining a possible reason for those findings?
The more you notice -- or imagine -- these events, the more likely it is to be stressful. The more you notice -- or imagine -- these events, the more likely you are to self-report and the more likely your self-report will contain more incidents.
Hoping or expecting the world the world to change to make your life less stressful probably isn't as effective as trying to change your reaction to the world.0 -
Could be. That doesn't change the options, does it? Hope the world changes or change yourself. What other option is there?DeguelloTex wrote: »
I didn't say the article did. I said people who notice more, whether it's actually there or not, are more likely to be stressed by it. It's pretty well known that stress is a bad thing for longevity. I'm explaining why I think the article isn't necessarily as important as it's being made out, and not drawing only from the article to do so.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Yes, I wrote in my post that I very rarely notice it, which means sometimes I do. But rarely. So, even if I felt like reporting, I'd have 1/1000 the incidents of a more sensitive person.DeguelloTex wrote: »
No, I'm saying some people perceive -- or exaggerate or even create -- slights that other people don't.@DeguelloTex , I guess I understand your overall point, but not some of your initial questions. Were you saying that if I was fat shamed, because I'm healthy and thin now or otherwise have a good handle on my life, if I were asked in a questionnaire I'd be less likely to report said fat shaming? IMO, this would mean one or two things: the non-reporters understand what events met the criteria for fat shaming and simply chose to lie (why??), or have categorized fewer things as fat shaming. The latter seems equally unlikely to me, to be honest, since I'm assuming the study must have attempted to define what constitutes fat shaming as part of the questionnaire. Now I wonder if we could have access to said questionnaire?
My family tells me that whenever we go out, people point and stare at me. I very rarely notice this. Who's more likely to get wound up and stressed out, someone who notices every theoretically discriminatory thing and gets all wound up about it or someone who doesn't notice or particularly remember or get wound up about it? Now, which is more likely to self-report these actions?
So, no, I don't think the latter is unlikely at all. Look into micro-aggression and the ludicrous things some people consider aggression and discrimination. People who go through life looking for reasons to be offended will surely find them in abundance. And will be pretty likely, imo, to take every opportunity to tell others about these actions. And I don't think it's much of a stretch to imagine that such people lead relatively more stressful lives.
Interesting. I would say the sample size might make the study robust to this possibility, though. If there are that many people showing this severe negative effect to perceived fat shaming/discrimination, it may still be worth either further investigation or a fix of some sort
And to your example, though, I've seen one or two posts from you where you have noticed some of that stuff, no? I would assume that if it happens at any kind of significant frequency, the affected individuals are bound to notice at some point, sensitive or not
Article doesn't say anything about frequency, though. Noticing is noticing...
You are also male. I'd hypothesize that females are fat shamed more than males both in the amount and intensity. There is no way in hell that you'd just not notice the things that have been been said and done to me in the name of shaming me for being overweight. I'd also say my experiences are not atypical to other women I have discussed this with.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
I didn't say the article did. I said people who notice more, whether it's actually there or not, are more likely to be stressed by it. It's pretty well known that stress is a bad thing for longevity. I'm explaining why I think the article isn't necessarily as important as it's being made out, and not drawing only from the article to do so.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Yes, I wrote in my post that I very rarely notice it, which means sometimes I do. But rarely. So, even if I felt like reporting, I'd have 1/1000 the incidents of a more sensitive person.DeguelloTex wrote: »
No, I'm saying some people perceive -- or exaggerate or even create -- slights that other people don't.@DeguelloTex , I guess I understand your overall point, but not some of your initial questions. Were you saying that if I was fat shamed, because I'm healthy and thin now or otherwise have a good handle on my life, if I were asked in a questionnaire I'd be less likely to report said fat shaming? IMO, this would mean one or two things: the non-reporters understand what events met the criteria for fat shaming and simply chose to lie (why??), or have categorized fewer things as fat shaming. The latter seems equally unlikely to me, to be honest, since I'm assuming the study must have attempted to define what constitutes fat shaming as part of the questionnaire. Now I wonder if we could have access to said questionnaire?
My family tells me that whenever we go out, people point and stare at me. I very rarely notice this. Who's more likely to get wound up and stressed out, someone who notices every theoretically discriminatory thing and gets all wound up about it or someone who doesn't notice or particularly remember or get wound up about it? Now, which is more likely to self-report these actions?
So, no, I don't think the latter is unlikely at all. Look into micro-aggression and the ludicrous things some people consider aggression and discrimination. People who go through life looking for reasons to be offended will surely find them in abundance. And will be pretty likely, imo, to take every opportunity to tell others about these actions. And I don't think it's much of a stretch to imagine that such people lead relatively more stressful lives.
Interesting. I would say the sample size might make the study robust to this possibility, though. If there are that many people showing this severe negative effect to perceived fat shaming/discrimination, it may still be worth either further investigation or a fix of some sort
And to your example, though, I've seen one or two posts from you where you have noticed some of that stuff, no? I would assume that if it happens at any kind of significant frequency, the affected individuals are bound to notice at some point, sensitive or not
Article doesn't say anything about frequency, though. Noticing is noticing...
You are also male. I'd hypothesize that females are fat shamed more than males both in the amount and intensity. There is no way in hell that you'd just not notice the things that have been been said and done to me in the name of shaming me for being overweight. I'd also say my experiences are not atypical to other women I have discussed this with.
I think gender does have a part to play in this.
I also think that it may not be fully an over-sensitivity thing and may in part be a reaction to how often it occurs. If you've lived your life with lots of people around you explicitly poking fun or making comments about your weight, I'd think you'd be more likely to notice every little thing that might be that, probably so you can throw your defenses up and at least pretend to not be hurt by whatever it is that could be coming.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I was wondering where the "let's make it illegal" stuff was.0
-
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Thinking you're being shamed or discriminated against is stressful. Stress shortens lives. Therefore thinking you're being shamed or discriminated shortens lives.DeguelloTex wrote: »
I didn't say the article did. I said people who notice more, whether it's actually there or not, are more likely to be stressed by it. It's pretty well known that stress is a bad thing for longevity. I'm explaining why I think the article isn't necessarily as important as it's being made out, and not drawing only from the article to do so.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Yes, I wrote in my post that I very rarely notice it, which means sometimes I do. But rarely. So, even if I felt like reporting, I'd have 1/1000 the incidents of a more sensitive person.DeguelloTex wrote: »
No, I'm saying some people perceive -- or exaggerate or even create -- slights that other people don't.@DeguelloTex , I guess I understand your overall point, but not some of your initial questions. Were you saying that if I was fat shamed, because I'm healthy and thin now or otherwise have a good handle on my life, if I were asked in a questionnaire I'd be less likely to report said fat shaming? IMO, this would mean one or two things: the non-reporters understand what events met the criteria for fat shaming and simply chose to lie (why??), or have categorized fewer things as fat shaming. The latter seems equally unlikely to me, to be honest, since I'm assuming the study must have attempted to define what constitutes fat shaming as part of the questionnaire. Now I wonder if we could have access to said questionnaire?
My family tells me that whenever we go out, people point and stare at me. I very rarely notice this. Who's more likely to get wound up and stressed out, someone who notices every theoretically discriminatory thing and gets all wound up about it or someone who doesn't notice or particularly remember or get wound up about it? Now, which is more likely to self-report these actions?
So, no, I don't think the latter is unlikely at all. Look into micro-aggression and the ludicrous things some people consider aggression and discrimination. People who go through life looking for reasons to be offended will surely find them in abundance. And will be pretty likely, imo, to take every opportunity to tell others about these actions. And I don't think it's much of a stretch to imagine that such people lead relatively more stressful lives.
Interesting. I would say the sample size might make the study robust to this possibility, though. If there are that many people showing this severe negative effect to perceived fat shaming/discrimination, it may still be worth either further investigation or a fix of some sort
And to your example, though, I've seen one or two posts from you where you have noticed some of that stuff, no? I would assume that if it happens at any kind of significant frequency, the affected individuals are bound to notice at some point, sensitive or not
Article doesn't say anything about frequency, though. Noticing is noticing...
So you're not necessarily disagreeing with the conclusions stated in the article - just that those conclusions were more or less a given, and not necessarily new information? So are you dismissing the findings documented in the article, or explaining a possible reason for those findings?
The more you notice -- or imagine -- these events, the more likely it is to be stressful. The more you notice -- or imagine -- these events, the more likely you are to self-report and the more likely your self-report will contain more incidents.
Hoping or expecting the world the world to change to make your life less stressful probably isn't as effective as trying to change your reaction to the world.
Again, since frequency wasn't covered, I'm still left having no idea why a significant enough number of people would participate in a study and say they weren't fat shamed when they were. I think the study was a good one. If nothing, it could be a basis for investigating or doing a study on the claims or hypotheses you've raised, for example0 -
This content has been removed.
-
DeguelloTex wrote: »[I didn't say it was magic, though, did I? Or that it would be instant? Or that it would be easy? It is, however, reasonably within your control. What others say to you, well, not so much.
So, as between two courses of action, one of which where you have some control and one where you don't, which seems a more feasible solution?
You didn't use the word magic, or instant. That was the way I interpreted your statement. "Again, they can cope better or hope for a quick, substantial increase in the manners of other humans." It seemed as though you were implying people changing themselves would or should be quick as the word was also applied to the shaming/discriminating population.
I don't think either is quick, but I know both are possible.
0 -
I said "quick" because the people who are potentially dying from it now don't have time to wait, do they?DeguelloTex wrote: »[I didn't say it was magic, though, did I? Or that it would be instant? Or that it would be easy? It is, however, reasonably within your control. What others say to you, well, not so much.
So, as between two courses of action, one of which where you have some control and one where you don't, which seems a more feasible solution?
You didn't use the word magic, or instant. That was the way I interpreted your statement. "Again, they can cope better or hope for a quick, substantial increase in the manners of other humans." It seemed as though you were implying people changing themselves would or should be quick as the word was also applied to the shaming/discriminating population.
I don't think either is quick, but I know both are possible.
Changing one's own handling of the situation is almost certainly going to happen more quickly than changing the mindset of the people doing the shaming, right?
Getting rid of various prejudices is "possible," too. How long has humanity been working on that? I think it's "possible" in an absolute, theoretical sense. In a practical sense? No, not really. We are, by and large "us vs. them" social animals and there will always be "them." However much you wish it not to be so.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions