Fat and Feminism--Want to get really pissed off??
Options
missblondi2u
Posts: 851 Member
So I've had this terrible article going around on my Facebook feed titled "11 Reasons Your ‘Concern’ for Fat People’s Health Isn’t Helping Anyone" and featured on the Everyday Feminism webpage. I can not believe the words I am reading!! Take a look for yourself. http://everydayfeminism.com/2016/01/concern-trolling-is-*kitten*/
While I can agree with some of what was said in the article viz a viz fat shaming and its negative mental health effects, there is so, so much that is flat out wrong here.
One example is this--"In reality, scientific evidence actually indicates that people categorized as “overweight” live longer than those categorized as “normal,” and most “obese” people live similarly long lives as their “normal” counterparts." When you open the actual study they cite, it says this--"We document once again, excess mortality associated with obesity. Our results do, however, question whether the current classification of individuals as "overweight" is optimal in the sense, since there is little evidence of increased risk of mortality in this group.” So the study did find excess mortality in the obese classification, but less so in the overweight classification, whereas the article implies no effect in either group.
Another example is in comparing weight loss to weight cycling. Yes, people who yo-yo diet are probably causing stress to their bodies, but that’s a factor of the concept of temporary dieting. The far better option is to avoid “dieting” all together and make sustainable lifestyle changes, but the authors don’t seem to think this is even possible, which brings me to the real issue I have with this article.
They state that “Popular belief would have you convinced that being fat – like living in poverty – is a choice,” and “But just like we don’t have much choice about our economic status, we don’t have much choice about our body types either.”
While it may be true that I can’t make myself taller or change my B cup to a D cup (at least without surgery), I very much have a choice in my weight. For years I lived with being overweight and then obese because I was convinced that losing weight was too hard or even beyond my abilities, but I was wrong. I’ve lost almost 50 pounds in the last 6 months by doing one very simple thing—eating fewer calories than I burn. No restrictive diet, no pills, and not even very much exercise was required. And you know what, it has been the most empowering thing I have ever done.
Saying that women have no control over their bodies is the opposite of feminism, in my opinion. No one should be shamed into losing weight, but to say you can’t do anything about it if you want is a great disservice to women.
Sorry for the way too long post, but I just had to get this off my chest, and you guys are the only ones who would really understand how bad this article is.
Rant over.
While I can agree with some of what was said in the article viz a viz fat shaming and its negative mental health effects, there is so, so much that is flat out wrong here.
One example is this--"In reality, scientific evidence actually indicates that people categorized as “overweight” live longer than those categorized as “normal,” and most “obese” people live similarly long lives as their “normal” counterparts." When you open the actual study they cite, it says this--"We document once again, excess mortality associated with obesity. Our results do, however, question whether the current classification of individuals as "overweight" is optimal in the sense, since there is little evidence of increased risk of mortality in this group.” So the study did find excess mortality in the obese classification, but less so in the overweight classification, whereas the article implies no effect in either group.
Another example is in comparing weight loss to weight cycling. Yes, people who yo-yo diet are probably causing stress to their bodies, but that’s a factor of the concept of temporary dieting. The far better option is to avoid “dieting” all together and make sustainable lifestyle changes, but the authors don’t seem to think this is even possible, which brings me to the real issue I have with this article.
They state that “Popular belief would have you convinced that being fat – like living in poverty – is a choice,” and “But just like we don’t have much choice about our economic status, we don’t have much choice about our body types either.”
While it may be true that I can’t make myself taller or change my B cup to a D cup (at least without surgery), I very much have a choice in my weight. For years I lived with being overweight and then obese because I was convinced that losing weight was too hard or even beyond my abilities, but I was wrong. I’ve lost almost 50 pounds in the last 6 months by doing one very simple thing—eating fewer calories than I burn. No restrictive diet, no pills, and not even very much exercise was required. And you know what, it has been the most empowering thing I have ever done.
Saying that women have no control over their bodies is the opposite of feminism, in my opinion. No one should be shamed into losing weight, but to say you can’t do anything about it if you want is a great disservice to women.
Sorry for the way too long post, but I just had to get this off my chest, and you guys are the only ones who would really understand how bad this article is.
Rant over.
0
Replies
-
First of all, I don't give troll sites traffic.
Second of all, it is true that overweight people live longer than those who are underweight. It's the use of semantics that makes the article shady.
0 -
-
Yep. Didn't read the article (didn't want to give them page views), but I got the gist. FAs keep trying to link HAES to feminism. It's an embarrassment to feminism.0
-
0
-
Oddly my objection was to the critical theory assumptions and slant to this article, not to its defense and use of actual medical statistics.0
-
You guys are right, I shouldn't get worked up about such BS, but I guess it's the first time I've really seen the HAES idea spouted in such a destructive way. It's like this article is actively trying to convince women that losing weight is bad for you and maybe even impossible!0
-
missblondi2u wrote: »You guys are right, I shouldn't get worked up about such BS, but I guess it's the first time I've really seen the HAES idea spouted in such a destructive way. It's like this article is actively trying to convince women that losing weight is bad for you and maybe even impossible!
I was listening to a discussion on the radio where the authors of a meta study claimed that anyone who lost weight and kept out off was an anomaly. Apparently many of us here don't exist.0 -
People are so soft in our days it's incredible! This article is so ridiculous it's blew my mind! There are no good reasons to be fat (unless there is a medical issue)! I disagree with trolling but come on it's not normal to support way of living that brings to overweight.0
-
missblondi2u wrote: »You guys are right, I shouldn't get worked up about such BS, but I guess it's the first time I've really seen the HAES idea spouted in such a destructive way. It's like this article is actively trying to convince women that losing weight is bad for you and maybe even impossible!
Crabs in a bucket0 -
The study they linked has issues with how they presented their statistics. While the mortality rate in the statistics was lowest in the overweight group rather than normal weight, part of this comes down to figures used don't differentiate between smokers, and non-smokers, as well as people in certain diseases state (a person starting chemo who was overweight or high end normal will have normal weight mid treatment, but people who are overweight for the full term of chemo are rare).Oddly my objection was to the critical theory assumptions and slant to this article, not to its defense and use of actual medical statistics.
I recall one person picked apart just the smoking part of this one study and it completely changes the mortality rate to BMI curve originally plotted.
0 -
missblondi2u wrote: »You guys are right, I shouldn't get worked up about such BS, but I guess it's the first time I've really seen the HAES idea spouted in such a destructive way. It's like this article is actively trying to convince women that losing weight is bad for you and maybe even impossible!
Crabs in a bucket
Had to look this up, but it's spot-on!0 -
This topic raises lots of issues for me:
- Do I believe that misogyny and sexism intersect with sizeism and anti-fat bias? Yes.
- Do I believe in Healthy at Any Size (HAES)? No.
- Do I believe that being somewhat overweight is healthier than the self-destructive under-eating and/or over exercise I have seen from some posters here? Yes.
- Am I curious as to why it is predominantly women who create posts indicating think they must suffer in order to lose weight? Yes.
0 - Do I believe that misogyny and sexism intersect with sizeism and anti-fat bias? Yes.
-
The study they linked has issues with how they presented their statistics. While the mortality rate in the statistics was lowest in the overweight group rather than normal weight, part of this comes down to figures used don't differentiate between smokers, and non-smokers, as well as people in certain diseases state (a person starting chemo who was overweight or high end normal will have normal weight mid treatment, but people who are overweight for the full term of chemo are rare).Oddly my objection was to the critical theory assumptions and slant to this article, not to its defense and use of actual medical statistics.
I recall one person picked apart just the smoking part of this one study and it completely changes the mortality rate to BMI curve originally plotted.
Similarly, if you remove people who recently lost weight (which is often sick people, as well as people who did so on purpose) that gets rid of the overweight being better than healthy weight thing, if memory serves. (I used to have a couple of links for this, but can't immediately find them.)0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »This topic raises lots of issues for me:
- Do I believe that misogyny and sexism intersect with sizeism and anti-fat bias? Yes.
- Do I believe in Healthy at Any Size (HAES)? No.
- Do I believe that being somewhat overweight is healthier than the self-destructive under-eating and/or over exercise I have seen from some posters here? Yes.
- Am I curious as to why it is predominantly women who create posts indicating think they must suffer in order to lose weight? Yes.
Great point. I see that so often, the idea that you should suffer to get thin because you were greedy enough to get fat. I don't understand this, but then again I was never a self-hating fat person. I loved myself enough to get healthier, that's all.0 - Do I believe that misogyny and sexism intersect with sizeism and anti-fat bias? Yes.
-
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »missblondi2u wrote: »You guys are right, I shouldn't get worked up about such BS, but I guess it's the first time I've really seen the HAES idea spouted in such a destructive way. It's like this article is actively trying to convince women that losing weight is bad for you and maybe even impossible!
I was listening to a discussion on the radio where the authors of a meta study claimed that anyone who lost weight and kept out off was an anomaly. Apparently many of us here don't exist.
Not sure what you mean. You can't be an anomaly unless you exist. People who lose weight and keep it off are anomalies because most people either fail to lose weight or (more commonly) fail to maintain the loss.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »This topic raises lots of issues for me:
- Do I believe that misogyny and sexism intersect with sizeism and anti-fat bias? Yes.
- Do I believe in Healthy at Any Size (HAES)? No.
- Do I believe that being somewhat overweight is healthier than the self-destructive under-eating and/or over exercise I have seen from some posters here? Yes.
- Am I curious as to why it is predominantly women who create posts indicating think they must suffer in order to lose weight? Yes.
I pretty much agree with all that, and find 4 an interesting question (although the posters here are probably predominantly women in general, women tend to read different sorts of dieting literature, and I am seeing it more in younger men).0 - Do I believe that misogyny and sexism intersect with sizeism and anti-fat bias? Yes.
-
I've thought about/read about women and body size issues for years. So many women think they have to be very, very thin to be attractive (whether healthy or not). I think its good to examine those assumptions. My healthy weight is quite a bit higher than the charts -- at that (relatively higher) weight my doctor says I am health, I run and bicycle long distances, lift weights, do HIIT, etc. etc. My clothes fit well and all is good. I think the weight charts are idiotic. That being said I don't feel well when I weigh over my self-determined number, and eating to a calorie/macro goal and exercising is the best way for me to lose a reasonable amount of weight.0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »missblondi2u wrote: »You guys are right, I shouldn't get worked up about such BS, but I guess it's the first time I've really seen the HAES idea spouted in such a destructive way. It's like this article is actively trying to convince women that losing weight is bad for you and maybe even impossible!
I was listening to a discussion on the radio where the authors of a meta study claimed that anyone who lost weight and kept out off was an anomaly. Apparently many of us here don't exist.
Not sure what you mean. You can't be an anomaly unless you exist. People who lose weight and keep it off are anomalies because most people either fail to lose weight or (more commonly) fail to maintain the loss.
Yes, but there are too many here to be a bone fide anomaly was my sarcastic point. I believe that to be an anomaly requires that you are past the third, at the least, standard deviation but it's certainly much more people who can maintain weight loss.
Also is used as a white wash statement to just ignore something they don't want to explain.0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »missblondi2u wrote: »You guys are right, I shouldn't get worked up about such BS, but I guess it's the first time I've really seen the HAES idea spouted in such a destructive way. It's like this article is actively trying to convince women that losing weight is bad for you and maybe even impossible!
I was listening to a discussion on the radio where the authors of a meta study claimed that anyone who lost weight and kept out off was an anomaly. Apparently many of us here don't exist.
Not sure what you mean. You can't be an anomaly unless you exist. People who lose weight and keep it off are anomalies because most people either fail to lose weight or (more commonly) fail to maintain the loss.
Yes, but there are too many here to be a bone fide anomaly was my sarcastic point. To be an anomaly requires that you are past the third, at the least, standard deviation but it's certainly much more people who can maintain weight loss.
Is it?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »missblondi2u wrote: »You guys are right, I shouldn't get worked up about such BS, but I guess it's the first time I've really seen the HAES idea spouted in such a destructive way. It's like this article is actively trying to convince women that losing weight is bad for you and maybe even impossible!
I was listening to a discussion on the radio where the authors of a meta study claimed that anyone who lost weight and kept out off was an anomaly. Apparently many of us here don't exist.
Not sure what you mean. You can't be an anomaly unless you exist. People who lose weight and keep it off are anomalies because most people either fail to lose weight or (more commonly) fail to maintain the loss.
Yes, but there are too many here to be a bone fide anomaly was my sarcastic point. To be an anomaly requires that you are past the third, at the least, standard deviation but it's certainly much more people who can maintain weight loss.
Is it?
Actually, read my edit, to me if you are going to say it's an anomaly and we aren't going to consider it you better be looking at a very small portion of the population you are excluding. Yes, there isn't an exact definition of anomaly but they were set point theorists and they weren't accepting people who could maintain as a reason to dismiss the validity of their theory. They label us anomalies so they can dismiss us summarily, and THAT is my issue. The model is wrong but they exclude any counter as being "just an anomaly". Sorry, I was rushed when I said what I did and it was inaccurate.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions