Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
I don't support the fat acceptance/plus size movement.
Replies
-
janejellyroll wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Geocitiesuser wrote: »calorielogonly wrote: »THE POINT IS....MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS. I AM TRYING TO LOSE WEIGHT AND WHY SHOULD ANYONE ELSE CARE?
That's the exact opposite of HAES/FA. HAES is insisting that fat is healthy and "beautiful". It is not. HAES is an active political movement to try to change people's perception of disgusting narcisists who think a political movement to be "beautiful" is less work than just eating less.
What specific laws are you concerned they will get passed or what specific things do you think they will achieve.
As I've mentioned, I don't see them as powerful or socially prominent at all, and if anything I find awareness of obesity as a health risk is nearly universal and certainly more common than it was when I was a kid.
The most concerning to me is getting weight added to the list of categories against which discrimination is illegal because in that case they can force cost-prohibitive accommodations on businesses, and and make it difficult not to hire (or to fire) employees whose weight is detrimental to their job performance.
In what kind of job would weight itself be detrimental to job performance? I understand lack of fitness being an issue, but I've worked in busy kitchens and warehouses with overweight people. Some of them did quite well, others didn't. I understand that many overweight people are unfit, but so are some thin people. I would rather evaluate someone by how they did a job.
policemen? firemen?
Wouldn't that be a fitness issue? Police officers and fire fighters have fitness tests. That wouldn't change if it became illegal to discriminate against overweight people. We'd eliminating the possibility of the presumption that overweight people are automatically unfit by the mere virtue of being overweight.
I fully anticipate that many (if not most) overweight people would fail the fitness tests. But since we have the test in place for those roles, why not go by that?
But if the fitness test is deemed to be discriminatory, the standards will be adjusted. This happened in the military. The fitness tests for Marines, Navy Seals, Army Rangers, etc had standards that were too high for women to physically do. They were deemed to be sexist and adjusted so that women could join up. Now when the military sets up teams, they never set up all women teams because they know the males will have to "help" the females through some of the more physically demanding bits ( carrying gear, getting over obstacles, lugging wounded around, etc). I'm not saying women should never be in the military, I am saying that if something is protected by anti discrimination laws, then fitness tests and other performance tests WILL be adjusted to accommodate.6 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Geocitiesuser wrote: »calorielogonly wrote: »THE POINT IS....MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS. I AM TRYING TO LOSE WEIGHT AND WHY SHOULD ANYONE ELSE CARE?
That's the exact opposite of HAES/FA. HAES is insisting that fat is healthy and "beautiful". It is not. HAES is an active political movement to try to change people's perception of disgusting narcisists who think a political movement to be "beautiful" is less work than just eating less.
What specific laws are you concerned they will get passed or what specific things do you think they will achieve.
As I've mentioned, I don't see them as powerful or socially prominent at all, and if anything I find awareness of obesity as a health risk is nearly universal and certainly more common than it was when I was a kid.
The most concerning to me is getting weight added to the list of categories against which discrimination is illegal because in that case they can force cost-prohibitive accommodations on businesses, and and make it difficult not to hire (or to fire) employees whose weight is detrimental to their job performance.
In what kind of job would weight itself be detrimental to job performance? I understand lack of fitness being an issue, but I've worked in busy kitchens and warehouses with overweight people. Some of them did quite well, others didn't. I understand that many overweight people are unfit, but so are some thin people. I would rather evaluate someone by how they did a job.
policemen? firemen?
Wouldn't that be a fitness issue? Police officers and fire fighters have fitness tests. That wouldn't change if it became illegal to discriminate against overweight people. We'd eliminating the possibility of the presumption that overweight people are automatically unfit by the mere virtue of being overweight.
I fully anticipate that many (if not most) overweight people would fail the fitness tests. But since we have the test in place for those roles, why not go by that?
But if the fitness test is deemed to be discriminatory, the standards will be adjusted. This happened in the military. The fitness tests for Marines, Navy Seals, Army Rangers, etc had standards that were too high for women to physically do. They were deemed to be sexist and adjusted so that women could join up. Now when the military sets up teams, they never set up all women teams because they know the males will have to "help" the females through some of the more physically demanding bits ( carrying gear, getting over obstacles, lugging wounded around, etc). I'm not saying women should never be in the military, I am saying that if something is protected by anti discrimination laws, then fitness tests and other performance tests WILL be adjusted to accommodate.
I understand what you're saying, but I don't share your assumption.
All I'm saying is that weight itself shouldn't be considered detrimental to job performance. It doesn't follow that fitness tests (for jobs that require them) should be adjusted. For jobs without fitness tests, job performance can be a sufficient evaluation.4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Geocitiesuser wrote: »calorielogonly wrote: »THE POINT IS....MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS. I AM TRYING TO LOSE WEIGHT AND WHY SHOULD ANYONE ELSE CARE?
That's the exact opposite of HAES/FA. HAES is insisting that fat is healthy and "beautiful". It is not. HAES is an active political movement to try to change people's perception of disgusting narcisists who think a political movement to be "beautiful" is less work than just eating less.
What specific laws are you concerned they will get passed or what specific things do you think they will achieve.
As I've mentioned, I don't see them as powerful or socially prominent at all, and if anything I find awareness of obesity as a health risk is nearly universal and certainly more common than it was when I was a kid.
The most concerning to me is getting weight added to the list of categories against which discrimination is illegal because in that case they can force cost-prohibitive accommodations on businesses, and and make it difficult not to hire (or to fire) employees whose weight is detrimental to their job performance.
In what kind of job would weight itself be detrimental to job performance? I understand lack of fitness being an issue, but I've worked in busy kitchens and warehouses with overweight people. Some of them did quite well, others didn't. I understand that many overweight people are unfit, but so are some thin people. I would rather evaluate someone by how they did a job.
policemen? firemen?
Wouldn't that be a fitness issue? Police officers and fire fighters have fitness tests. That wouldn't change if it became illegal to discriminate against overweight people. We'd eliminating the possibility of the presumption that overweight people are automatically unfit by the mere virtue of being overweight.
I fully anticipate that many (if not most) overweight people would fail the fitness tests. But since we have the test in place for those roles, why not go by that?
But if the fitness test is deemed to be discriminatory, the standards will be adjusted. This happened in the military. The fitness tests for Marines, Navy Seals, Army Rangers, etc had standards that were too high for women to physically do. They were deemed to be sexist and adjusted so that women could join up. Now when the military sets up teams, they never set up all women teams because they know the males will have to "help" the females through some of the more physically demanding bits ( carrying gear, getting over obstacles, lugging wounded around, etc). I'm not saying women should never be in the military, I am saying that if something is protected by anti discrimination laws, then fitness tests and other performance tests WILL be adjusted to accommodate.
I understand what you're saying, but I don't share your assumption.
All I'm saying is that weight itself shouldn't be considered detrimental to job performance. It doesn't follow that fitness tests (for jobs that require them) should be adjusted. For jobs without fitness tests, job performance can be a sufficient evaluation.
At least my "assumption" is based on the historical facts of how anti discrimination laws have affected fitness tests to accommodate less physically able people in the real world. Your assumption appears to be based on some sort of alternate reality. You're welcome to it.2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Geocitiesuser wrote: »calorielogonly wrote: »THE POINT IS....MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS. I AM TRYING TO LOSE WEIGHT AND WHY SHOULD ANYONE ELSE CARE?
That's the exact opposite of HAES/FA. HAES is insisting that fat is healthy and "beautiful". It is not. HAES is an active political movement to try to change people's perception of disgusting narcisists who think a political movement to be "beautiful" is less work than just eating less.
What specific laws are you concerned they will get passed or what specific things do you think they will achieve.
As I've mentioned, I don't see them as powerful or socially prominent at all, and if anything I find awareness of obesity as a health risk is nearly universal and certainly more common than it was when I was a kid.
The most concerning to me is getting weight added to the list of categories against which discrimination is illegal because in that case they can force cost-prohibitive accommodations on businesses, and and make it difficult not to hire (or to fire) employees whose weight is detrimental to their job performance.
In what kind of job would weight itself be detrimental to job performance? I understand lack of fitness being an issue, but I've worked in busy kitchens and warehouses with overweight people. Some of them did quite well, others didn't. I understand that many overweight people are unfit, but so are some thin people. I would rather evaluate someone by how they did a job.
policemen? firemen?
Wouldn't that be a fitness issue? Police officers and fire fighters have fitness tests. That wouldn't change if it became illegal to discriminate against overweight people. We'd eliminating the possibility of the presumption that overweight people are automatically unfit by the mere virtue of being overweight.
I fully anticipate that many (if not most) overweight people would fail the fitness tests. But since we have the test in place for those roles, why not go by that?
But if the fitness test is deemed to be discriminatory, the standards will be adjusted. This happened in the military. The fitness tests for Marines, Navy Seals, Army Rangers, etc had standards that were too high for women to physically do. They were deemed to be sexist and adjusted so that women could join up. Now when the military sets up teams, they never set up all women teams because they know the males will have to "help" the females through some of the more physically demanding bits ( carrying gear, getting over obstacles, lugging wounded around, etc). I'm not saying women should never be in the military, I am saying that if something is protected by anti discrimination laws, then fitness tests and other performance tests WILL be adjusted to accommodate.
There have already been cops who sued over fitness tests, and a firefighter who sued because she failed the course and claimed that it was discriminatory against women.
Codifying protection for obesity into law will exacerbate this problem.4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Geocitiesuser wrote: »calorielogonly wrote: »THE POINT IS....MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS. I AM TRYING TO LOSE WEIGHT AND WHY SHOULD ANYONE ELSE CARE?
That's the exact opposite of HAES/FA. HAES is insisting that fat is healthy and "beautiful". It is not. HAES is an active political movement to try to change people's perception of disgusting narcisists who think a political movement to be "beautiful" is less work than just eating less.
What specific laws are you concerned they will get passed or what specific things do you think they will achieve.
As I've mentioned, I don't see them as powerful or socially prominent at all, and if anything I find awareness of obesity as a health risk is nearly universal and certainly more common than it was when I was a kid.
The most concerning to me is getting weight added to the list of categories against which discrimination is illegal because in that case they can force cost-prohibitive accommodations on businesses, and and make it difficult not to hire (or to fire) employees whose weight is detrimental to their job performance.
In what kind of job would weight itself be detrimental to job performance? I understand lack of fitness being an issue, but I've worked in busy kitchens and warehouses with overweight people. Some of them did quite well, others didn't. I understand that many overweight people are unfit, but so are some thin people. I would rather evaluate someone by how they did a job.
policemen? firemen?
Wouldn't that be a fitness issue? Police officers and fire fighters have fitness tests. That wouldn't change if it became illegal to discriminate against overweight people. We'd eliminating the possibility of the presumption that overweight people are automatically unfit by the mere virtue of being overweight.
I fully anticipate that many (if not most) overweight people would fail the fitness tests. But since we have the test in place for those roles, why not go by that?
But if the fitness test is deemed to be discriminatory, the standards will be adjusted. This happened in the military. The fitness tests for Marines, Navy Seals, Army Rangers, etc had standards that were too high for women to physically do. They were deemed to be sexist and adjusted so that women could join up. Now when the military sets up teams, they never set up all women teams because they know the males will have to "help" the females through some of the more physically demanding bits ( carrying gear, getting over obstacles, lugging wounded around, etc). I'm not saying women should never be in the military, I am saying that if something is protected by anti discrimination laws, then fitness tests and other performance tests WILL be adjusted to accommodate.
I understand what you're saying, but I don't share your assumption.
All I'm saying is that weight itself shouldn't be considered detrimental to job performance. It doesn't follow that fitness tests (for jobs that require them) should be adjusted. For jobs without fitness tests, job performance can be a sufficient evaluation.
Mostly, I agree that it wouldn't be the case. Job performance would typically be impacted by something related to weight like fitness, or girth* (for jobs that require maneuvering in small spaces), or agility.
I can think of cases where it would, though.
Race car drivers, jockeys and similar where your weight affects your speed and being lighter is better.
Professional dancers, and similar who are lifted by others.
Any job where they use equipment that has a safety rating lower than the employee's weight. Lots of construction equipment (think ladders, scaffolds, etc) are rated up to 300 or 400 lbs including the load, for example.
*Before anyone gets bent out of shape about girth, it's no different than not getting a job based on legitimate height requirements.4 -
Unfortunately in the US where government pays over half the cost of healthcare it's all taxpayers problem..
The government does not pay any of my healthcare.
Wow, you have to be accepting of who you are to embrace and love who you are. I am an example of being plus sized and healthy.
Personally if I was not confident in myself and I saw this thread I would feel like this was an unaccepting place where I had no place being.
How many people do you think this thread has discouraged. Several I am sure.3 -
At the end of the day, people will be whoever they want to be. Accepting them as a fat person is really what it's all about instead of "fat shaming" them for not being would you feel would be best for them. Let fat people be fat and those who want to change encourage them to do so and not because fat is ugly but because they want to change. I was fat, I was skinny, I was at 5% bf, I've been all over the spectrum but the reality is, I did it and I decided to make those physical changes and nobody else. As I close I will reiterate, the importance of letting people be them without placing your own beliefs, rules, boundaries etc on them. Let's get it!7
-
bobshuckleberry wrote: »Unfortunately in the US where government pays over half the cost of healthcare it's all taxpayers problem..
The government does not pay any of my healthcare.
Wow, you have to be accepting of who you are to embrace and love who you are. I am an example of being plus sized and healthy.
Personally if I was not confident in myself and I saw this thread I would feel like this was an unaccepting place where I had no place being.
How many people do you think this thread has discouraged. Several I am sure.
This is the debate forum, where people are encouraged to post their own opinions and agree or disagree with others who post their own. If you are taking the opinions expressed here as a personal attack then you should probably not spend time here, since there are other forums available that are mostly much more positive. Scolding people for using the debate forum as designed is inappropriate.14 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Geocitiesuser wrote: »calorielogonly wrote: »THE POINT IS....MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS. I AM TRYING TO LOSE WEIGHT AND WHY SHOULD ANYONE ELSE CARE?
That's the exact opposite of HAES/FA. HAES is insisting that fat is healthy and "beautiful". It is not. HAES is an active political movement to try to change people's perception of disgusting narcisists who think a political movement to be "beautiful" is less work than just eating less.
What specific laws are you concerned they will get passed or what specific things do you think they will achieve.
As I've mentioned, I don't see them as powerful or socially prominent at all, and if anything I find awareness of obesity as a health risk is nearly universal and certainly more common than it was when I was a kid.
The most concerning to me is getting weight added to the list of categories against which discrimination is illegal because in that case they can force cost-prohibitive accommodations on businesses, and and make it difficult not to hire (or to fire) employees whose weight is detrimental to their job performance.
In what kind of job would weight itself be detrimental to job performance? I understand lack of fitness being an issue, but I've worked in busy kitchens and warehouses with overweight people. Some of them did quite well, others didn't. I understand that many overweight people are unfit, but so are some thin people. I would rather evaluate someone by how they did a job.
policemen? firemen?
Wouldn't that be a fitness issue? Police officers and fire fighters have fitness tests. That wouldn't change if it became illegal to discriminate against overweight people. We'd eliminating the possibility of the presumption that overweight people are automatically unfit by the mere virtue of being overweight.
I fully anticipate that many (if not most) overweight people would fail the fitness tests. But since we have the test in place for those roles, why not go by that?
But if the fitness test is deemed to be discriminatory, the standards will be adjusted. This happened in the military. The fitness tests for Marines, Navy Seals, Army Rangers, etc had standards that were too high for women to physically do. They were deemed to be sexist and adjusted so that women could join up. Now when the military sets up teams, they never set up all women teams because they know the males will have to "help" the females through some of the more physically demanding bits ( carrying gear, getting over obstacles, lugging wounded around, etc). I'm not saying women should never be in the military, I am saying that if something is protected by anti discrimination laws, then fitness tests and other performance tests WILL be adjusted to accommodate.
I understand what you're saying, but I don't share your assumption.
All I'm saying is that weight itself shouldn't be considered detrimental to job performance. It doesn't follow that fitness tests (for jobs that require them) should be adjusted. For jobs without fitness tests, job performance can be a sufficient evaluation.
At least my "assumption" is based on the historical facts of how anti discrimination laws have affected fitness tests to accommodate less physically able people in the real world. Your assumption appears to be based on some sort of alternate reality. You're welcome to it.
My position is based on my actual experience hiring and supervising people in kitchens and warehouses, some of whom have been protected by various existing anti-discrimination laws. An anti-discrimination law doesn't change the fact that jobs can have fitness tests related to the demands of the job and it doesn't change the fact that employers can outline essential functions of the job that applicants must be able to perform.
If you're determined to dismiss actual experience, law, and current practices as "alternative reality," I guess there isn't much basis for this conversation to continue. I wish you the best.3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Geocitiesuser wrote: »calorielogonly wrote: »THE POINT IS....MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS. I AM TRYING TO LOSE WEIGHT AND WHY SHOULD ANYONE ELSE CARE?
That's the exact opposite of HAES/FA. HAES is insisting that fat is healthy and "beautiful". It is not. HAES is an active political movement to try to change people's perception of disgusting narcisists who think a political movement to be "beautiful" is less work than just eating less.
What specific laws are you concerned they will get passed or what specific things do you think they will achieve.
As I've mentioned, I don't see them as powerful or socially prominent at all, and if anything I find awareness of obesity as a health risk is nearly universal and certainly more common than it was when I was a kid.
The most concerning to me is getting weight added to the list of categories against which discrimination is illegal because in that case they can force cost-prohibitive accommodations on businesses, and and make it difficult not to hire (or to fire) employees whose weight is detrimental to their job performance.
In what kind of job would weight itself be detrimental to job performance? I understand lack of fitness being an issue, but I've worked in busy kitchens and warehouses with overweight people. Some of them did quite well, others didn't. I understand that many overweight people are unfit, but so are some thin people. I would rather evaluate someone by how they did a job.
policemen? firemen?
Wouldn't that be a fitness issue? Police officers and fire fighters have fitness tests. That wouldn't change if it became illegal to discriminate against overweight people. We'd eliminating the possibility of the presumption that overweight people are automatically unfit by the mere virtue of being overweight.
I fully anticipate that many (if not most) overweight people would fail the fitness tests. But since we have the test in place for those roles, why not go by that?
But if the fitness test is deemed to be discriminatory, the standards will be adjusted. This happened in the military. The fitness tests for Marines, Navy Seals, Army Rangers, etc had standards that were too high for women to physically do. They were deemed to be sexist and adjusted so that women could join up. Now when the military sets up teams, they never set up all women teams because they know the males will have to "help" the females through some of the more physically demanding bits ( carrying gear, getting over obstacles, lugging wounded around, etc). I'm not saying women should never be in the military, I am saying that if something is protected by anti discrimination laws, then fitness tests and other performance tests WILL be adjusted to accommodate.
I understand what you're saying, but I don't share your assumption.
All I'm saying is that weight itself shouldn't be considered detrimental to job performance. It doesn't follow that fitness tests (for jobs that require them) should be adjusted. For jobs without fitness tests, job performance can be a sufficient evaluation.
Mostly, I agree that it wouldn't be the case. Job performance would typically be impacted by something related to weight like fitness, or girth* (for jobs that require maneuvering in small spaces), or agility.
I can think of cases where it would, though.
Race car drivers, jockeys and similar where your weight affects your speed and being lighter is better.
Professional dancers, and similar who are lifted by others.
Any job where they use equipment that has a safety rating lower than the employee's weight. Lots of construction equipment (think ladders, scaffolds, etc) are rated up to 300 or 400 lbs including the load, for example.
*Before anyone gets bent out of shape about girth, it's no different than not getting a job based on legitimate height requirements.
Those are all really good examples of jobs where weight might be an issue and since they can be clearly expressed in job qualifications, I can't see that they would be impacted by an anti-discrimination law. Your examples do change my mind about my initial statement, which was too broad and probably too influenced by my own employment history (sadly, no professional dance in my past).
Things like that aren't an issue now -- for example, I had a job where it was important to be able to supervise employees working in an area of the warehouse that could only be reached via ladders and stairs. Being able to get to those areas was an essential part of the job function and it is legal to let applicants know that and hire on that basis (even though it's illegal to not hire someone simply because their mobility is limited).
I think there is this misconception that anti-discrimination laws mean that anyone has to be hired for any job in any circumstance. But that isn't the case. If there are parts of the job that can be done by people with specific limitations or conditions, that's allowed.4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Geocitiesuser wrote: »calorielogonly wrote: »THE POINT IS....MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS. I AM TRYING TO LOSE WEIGHT AND WHY SHOULD ANYONE ELSE CARE?
That's the exact opposite of HAES/FA. HAES is insisting that fat is healthy and "beautiful". It is not. HAES is an active political movement to try to change people's perception of disgusting narcisists who think a political movement to be "beautiful" is less work than just eating less.
What specific laws are you concerned they will get passed or what specific things do you think they will achieve.
As I've mentioned, I don't see them as powerful or socially prominent at all, and if anything I find awareness of obesity as a health risk is nearly universal and certainly more common than it was when I was a kid.
The most concerning to me is getting weight added to the list of categories against which discrimination is illegal because in that case they can force cost-prohibitive accommodations on businesses, and and make it difficult not to hire (or to fire) employees whose weight is detrimental to their job performance.
In what kind of job would weight itself be detrimental to job performance? I understand lack of fitness being an issue, but I've worked in busy kitchens and warehouses with overweight people. Some of them did quite well, others didn't. I understand that many overweight people are unfit, but so are some thin people. I would rather evaluate someone by how they did a job.
policemen? firemen?
Wouldn't that be a fitness issue? Police officers and fire fighters have fitness tests. That wouldn't change if it became illegal to discriminate against overweight people. We'd eliminating the possibility of the presumption that overweight people are automatically unfit by the mere virtue of being overweight.
I fully anticipate that many (if not most) overweight people would fail the fitness tests. But since we have the test in place for those roles, why not go by that?
But if the fitness test is deemed to be discriminatory, the standards will be adjusted. This happened in the military. The fitness tests for Marines, Navy Seals, Army Rangers, etc had standards that were too high for women to physically do. They were deemed to be sexist and adjusted so that women could join up. Now when the military sets up teams, they never set up all women teams because they know the males will have to "help" the females through some of the more physically demanding bits ( carrying gear, getting over obstacles, lugging wounded around, etc). I'm not saying women should never be in the military, I am saying that if something is protected by anti discrimination laws, then fitness tests and other performance tests WILL be adjusted to accommodate.
I understand what you're saying, but I don't share your assumption.
All I'm saying is that weight itself shouldn't be considered detrimental to job performance. It doesn't follow that fitness tests (for jobs that require them) should be adjusted. For jobs without fitness tests, job performance can be a sufficient evaluation.
At least my "assumption" is based on the historical facts of how anti discrimination laws have affected fitness tests to accommodate less physically able people in the real world. Your assumption appears to be based on some sort of alternate reality. You're welcome to it.
Actually, it's easy to legislate to provide for one or the other.
Our antidiscrimination laws were held by the SC to allow for claims based on disparate impact, which is why some things had to be adjusted based on discriminatory effect (I don't think the military was forced to by the courts as generally it is given huge deference, but I have not specifically looked into it -- more likely it decided to make the changes, as it decided to allow women into various positions).
Anyway, if Congress had wanted to, it could amend the legislation to say "disparate impact is not a violation" or "this does not prohibit genuine job requirements -- at the complete discretion of the employer -- that would have a discriminatory effect" or some such.
Indeed, genuine job requirements are permitted even with disparate impact, you just need to be able to show that they really are needed (which is a burden on the employer and therefore I would generally not expand the categories under which it would have to justify this to a court without strong reason -- I think there was and is reason with such things as race and sex discrimination, but do not wrt weight).4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Geocitiesuser wrote: »calorielogonly wrote: »THE POINT IS....MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS. I AM TRYING TO LOSE WEIGHT AND WHY SHOULD ANYONE ELSE CARE?
That's the exact opposite of HAES/FA. HAES is insisting that fat is healthy and "beautiful". It is not. HAES is an active political movement to try to change people's perception of disgusting narcisists who think a political movement to be "beautiful" is less work than just eating less.
What specific laws are you concerned they will get passed or what specific things do you think they will achieve.
As I've mentioned, I don't see them as powerful or socially prominent at all, and if anything I find awareness of obesity as a health risk is nearly universal and certainly more common than it was when I was a kid.
The most concerning to me is getting weight added to the list of categories against which discrimination is illegal because in that case they can force cost-prohibitive accommodations on businesses, and and make it difficult not to hire (or to fire) employees whose weight is detrimental to their job performance.
In what kind of job would weight itself be detrimental to job performance? I understand lack of fitness being an issue, but I've worked in busy kitchens and warehouses with overweight people. Some of them did quite well, others didn't. I understand that many overweight people are unfit, but so are some thin people. I would rather evaluate someone by how they did a job.
policemen? firemen?
Wouldn't that be a fitness issue? Police officers and fire fighters have fitness tests. That wouldn't change if it became illegal to discriminate against overweight people. We'd eliminating the possibility of the presumption that overweight people are automatically unfit by the mere virtue of being overweight.
I fully anticipate that many (if not most) overweight people would fail the fitness tests. But since we have the test in place for those roles, why not go by that?
But if the fitness test is deemed to be discriminatory, the standards will be adjusted. This happened in the military. The fitness tests for Marines, Navy Seals, Army Rangers, etc had standards that were too high for women to physically do. They were deemed to be sexist and adjusted so that women could join up. Now when the military sets up teams, they never set up all women teams because they know the males will have to "help" the females through some of the more physically demanding bits ( carrying gear, getting over obstacles, lugging wounded around, etc). I'm not saying women should never be in the military, I am saying that if something is protected by anti discrimination laws, then fitness tests and other performance tests WILL be adjusted to accommodate.
I understand what you're saying, but I don't share your assumption.
All I'm saying is that weight itself shouldn't be considered detrimental to job performance. It doesn't follow that fitness tests (for jobs that require them) should be adjusted. For jobs without fitness tests, job performance can be a sufficient evaluation.
Mostly, I agree that it wouldn't be the case. Job performance would typically be impacted by something related to weight like fitness, or girth* (for jobs that require maneuvering in small spaces), or agility.
I can think of cases where it would, though.
Race car drivers, jockeys and similar where your weight affects your speed and being lighter is better.
Professional dancers, and similar who are lifted by others.
Any job where they use equipment that has a safety rating lower than the employee's weight. Lots of construction equipment (think ladders, scaffolds, etc) are rated up to 300 or 400 lbs including the load, for example.
*Before anyone gets bent out of shape about girth, it's no different than not getting a job based on legitimate height requirements.
Those are all really good examples of jobs where weight might be an issue and since they can be clearly expressed in job qualifications, I can't see that they would be impacted by an anti-discrimination law. Your examples do change my mind about my initial statement, which was too broad and probably too influenced by my own employment history (sadly, no professional dance in my past).
Things like that aren't an issue now -- for example, I had a job where it was important to be able to supervise employees working in an area of the warehouse that could only be reached via ladders and stairs. Being able to get to those areas was an essential part of the job function and it is legal to let applicants know that and hire on that basis (even though it's illegal to not hire someone simply because their mobility is limited).
I think there is this misconception that anti-discrimination laws mean that anyone has to be hired for any job in any circumstance. But that isn't the case. If there are parts of the job that can be done by people with specific limitations or conditions, that's allowed.
I realize that, though in practice my HR department tends to be ridiculous about it. God forbid I fire someone that's in a protected class, regardless of how poorly they perform and how well that's been documented.
I can't for the life of me figure out how you'd word requirements for the race car driver to avoid triggering anti-discrimination laws - if there were such a law regarding weight and if 'race car driver' were a job that's ever posted. Maybe a time requirement in a test race using a specific car?1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Geocitiesuser wrote: »calorielogonly wrote: »THE POINT IS....MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS. I AM TRYING TO LOSE WEIGHT AND WHY SHOULD ANYONE ELSE CARE?
That's the exact opposite of HAES/FA. HAES is insisting that fat is healthy and "beautiful". It is not. HAES is an active political movement to try to change people's perception of disgusting narcisists who think a political movement to be "beautiful" is less work than just eating less.
What specific laws are you concerned they will get passed or what specific things do you think they will achieve.
As I've mentioned, I don't see them as powerful or socially prominent at all, and if anything I find awareness of obesity as a health risk is nearly universal and certainly more common than it was when I was a kid.
The most concerning to me is getting weight added to the list of categories against which discrimination is illegal because in that case they can force cost-prohibitive accommodations on businesses, and and make it difficult not to hire (or to fire) employees whose weight is detrimental to their job performance.
In what kind of job would weight itself be detrimental to job performance? I understand lack of fitness being an issue, but I've worked in busy kitchens and warehouses with overweight people. Some of them did quite well, others didn't. I understand that many overweight people are unfit, but so are some thin people. I would rather evaluate someone by how they did a job.
policemen? firemen?
Wouldn't that be a fitness issue? Police officers and fire fighters have fitness tests. That wouldn't change if it became illegal to discriminate against overweight people. We'd eliminating the possibility of the presumption that overweight people are automatically unfit by the mere virtue of being overweight.
I fully anticipate that many (if not most) overweight people would fail the fitness tests. But since we have the test in place for those roles, why not go by that?
But if the fitness test is deemed to be discriminatory, the standards will be adjusted. This happened in the military. The fitness tests for Marines, Navy Seals, Army Rangers, etc had standards that were too high for women to physically do. They were deemed to be sexist and adjusted so that women could join up. Now when the military sets up teams, they never set up all women teams because they know the males will have to "help" the females through some of the more physically demanding bits ( carrying gear, getting over obstacles, lugging wounded around, etc). I'm not saying women should never be in the military, I am saying that if something is protected by anti discrimination laws, then fitness tests and other performance tests WILL be adjusted to accommodate.
I understand what you're saying, but I don't share your assumption.
All I'm saying is that weight itself shouldn't be considered detrimental to job performance. It doesn't follow that fitness tests (for jobs that require them) should be adjusted. For jobs without fitness tests, job performance can be a sufficient evaluation.
Mostly, I agree that it wouldn't be the case. Job performance would typically be impacted by something related to weight like fitness, or girth* (for jobs that require maneuvering in small spaces), or agility.
I can think of cases where it would, though.
Race car drivers, jockeys and similar where your weight affects your speed and being lighter is better.
Professional dancers, and similar who are lifted by others.
Any job where they use equipment that has a safety rating lower than the employee's weight. Lots of construction equipment (think ladders, scaffolds, etc) are rated up to 300 or 400 lbs including the load, for example.
*Before anyone gets bent out of shape about girth, it's no different than not getting a job based on legitimate height requirements.
Those are all really good examples of jobs where weight might be an issue and since they can be clearly expressed in job qualifications, I can't see that they would be impacted by an anti-discrimination law. Your examples do change my mind about my initial statement, which was too broad and probably too influenced by my own employment history (sadly, no professional dance in my past).
Things like that aren't an issue now -- for example, I had a job where it was important to be able to supervise employees working in an area of the warehouse that could only be reached via ladders and stairs. Being able to get to those areas was an essential part of the job function and it is legal to let applicants know that and hire on that basis (even though it's illegal to not hire someone simply because their mobility is limited).
I think there is this misconception that anti-discrimination laws mean that anyone has to be hired for any job in any circumstance. But that isn't the case. If there are parts of the job that can be done by people with specific limitations or conditions, that's allowed.
I realize that, though in practice my HR department tends to be ridiculous about it. God forbid I fire someone that's in a protected class, regardless of how poorly they perform and how well that's been documented.
I can't for the life of me figure out how you'd word requirements for the race car driver to avoid triggering anti-discrimination laws - if there were such a law regarding weight and if 'race car driver' were a job that's ever posted. Maybe a time requirement in a test race using a specific car?
Or maybe jockey? I mean, doesn't everyone know that it's preferable to be shorter/lighter? I don't think they get a lot of 6'5 300lb linebacker types applying to race horses... It's all part of the performance requirements of the job.
ETA, I see that's already been covered. Skimming!
1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Geocitiesuser wrote: »calorielogonly wrote: »THE POINT IS....MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS. I AM TRYING TO LOSE WEIGHT AND WHY SHOULD ANYONE ELSE CARE?
That's the exact opposite of HAES/FA. HAES is insisting that fat is healthy and "beautiful". It is not. HAES is an active political movement to try to change people's perception of disgusting narcisists who think a political movement to be "beautiful" is less work than just eating less.
What specific laws are you concerned they will get passed or what specific things do you think they will achieve.
As I've mentioned, I don't see them as powerful or socially prominent at all, and if anything I find awareness of obesity as a health risk is nearly universal and certainly more common than it was when I was a kid.
The most concerning to me is getting weight added to the list of categories against which discrimination is illegal because in that case they can force cost-prohibitive accommodations on businesses, and and make it difficult not to hire (or to fire) employees whose weight is detrimental to their job performance.
In what kind of job would weight itself be detrimental to job performance? I understand lack of fitness being an issue, but I've worked in busy kitchens and warehouses with overweight people. Some of them did quite well, others didn't. I understand that many overweight people are unfit, but so are some thin people. I would rather evaluate someone by how they did a job.
policemen? firemen?
Wouldn't that be a fitness issue? Police officers and fire fighters have fitness tests. That wouldn't change if it became illegal to discriminate against overweight people. We'd eliminating the possibility of the presumption that overweight people are automatically unfit by the mere virtue of being overweight.
I fully anticipate that many (if not most) overweight people would fail the fitness tests. But since we have the test in place for those roles, why not go by that?
But if the fitness test is deemed to be discriminatory, the standards will be adjusted. This happened in the military. The fitness tests for Marines, Navy Seals, Army Rangers, etc had standards that were too high for women to physically do. They were deemed to be sexist and adjusted so that women could join up. Now when the military sets up teams, they never set up all women teams because they know the males will have to "help" the females through some of the more physically demanding bits ( carrying gear, getting over obstacles, lugging wounded around, etc). I'm not saying women should never be in the military, I am saying that if something is protected by anti discrimination laws, then fitness tests and other performance tests WILL be adjusted to accommodate.
I understand what you're saying, but I don't share your assumption.
All I'm saying is that weight itself shouldn't be considered detrimental to job performance. It doesn't follow that fitness tests (for jobs that require them) should be adjusted. For jobs without fitness tests, job performance can be a sufficient evaluation.
Mostly, I agree that it wouldn't be the case. Job performance would typically be impacted by something related to weight like fitness, or girth* (for jobs that require maneuvering in small spaces), or agility.
I can think of cases where it would, though.
Race car drivers, jockeys and similar where your weight affects your speed and being lighter is better.
Professional dancers, and similar who are lifted by others.
Any job where they use equipment that has a safety rating lower than the employee's weight. Lots of construction equipment (think ladders, scaffolds, etc) are rated up to 300 or 400 lbs including the load, for example.
*Before anyone gets bent out of shape about girth, it's no different than not getting a job based on legitimate height requirements.
Those are all really good examples of jobs where weight might be an issue and since they can be clearly expressed in job qualifications, I can't see that they would be impacted by an anti-discrimination law. Your examples do change my mind about my initial statement, which was too broad and probably too influenced by my own employment history (sadly, no professional dance in my past).
Things like that aren't an issue now -- for example, I had a job where it was important to be able to supervise employees working in an area of the warehouse that could only be reached via ladders and stairs. Being able to get to those areas was an essential part of the job function and it is legal to let applicants know that and hire on that basis (even though it's illegal to not hire someone simply because their mobility is limited).
I think there is this misconception that anti-discrimination laws mean that anyone has to be hired for any job in any circumstance. But that isn't the case. If there are parts of the job that can be done by people with specific limitations or conditions, that's allowed.
I realize that, though in practice my HR department tends to be ridiculous about it. God forbid I fire someone that's in a protected class, regardless of how poorly they perform and how well that's been documented.
I can't for the life of me figure out how you'd word requirements for the race car driver to avoid triggering anti-discrimination laws - if there were such a law regarding weight and if 'race car driver' were a job that's ever posted. Maybe a time requirement in a test race using a specific car?
Or maybe jockey? I mean, doesn't everyone know that it's preferable to be shorter/lighter? I don't think they get a lot of 6'5 300lb linebacker types applying to race horses... It's all part of the performance requirements of the job.
You mean there are no sumo jockeys?! Say it ain't so!
9 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Geocitiesuser wrote: »calorielogonly wrote: »THE POINT IS....MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS. I AM TRYING TO LOSE WEIGHT AND WHY SHOULD ANYONE ELSE CARE?
That's the exact opposite of HAES/FA. HAES is insisting that fat is healthy and "beautiful". It is not. HAES is an active political movement to try to change people's perception of disgusting narcisists who think a political movement to be "beautiful" is less work than just eating less.
What specific laws are you concerned they will get passed or what specific things do you think they will achieve.
As I've mentioned, I don't see them as powerful or socially prominent at all, and if anything I find awareness of obesity as a health risk is nearly universal and certainly more common than it was when I was a kid.
The most concerning to me is getting weight added to the list of categories against which discrimination is illegal because in that case they can force cost-prohibitive accommodations on businesses, and and make it difficult not to hire (or to fire) employees whose weight is detrimental to their job performance.
In what kind of job would weight itself be detrimental to job performance? I understand lack of fitness being an issue, but I've worked in busy kitchens and warehouses with overweight people. Some of them did quite well, others didn't. I understand that many overweight people are unfit, but so are some thin people. I would rather evaluate someone by how they did a job.
policemen? firemen?
Wouldn't that be a fitness issue? Police officers and fire fighters have fitness tests. That wouldn't change if it became illegal to discriminate against overweight people. We'd eliminating the possibility of the presumption that overweight people are automatically unfit by the mere virtue of being overweight.
I fully anticipate that many (if not most) overweight people would fail the fitness tests. But since we have the test in place for those roles, why not go by that?
But if the fitness test is deemed to be discriminatory, the standards will be adjusted. This happened in the military. The fitness tests for Marines, Navy Seals, Army Rangers, etc had standards that were too high for women to physically do. They were deemed to be sexist and adjusted so that women could join up. Now when the military sets up teams, they never set up all women teams because they know the males will have to "help" the females through some of the more physically demanding bits ( carrying gear, getting over obstacles, lugging wounded around, etc). I'm not saying women should never be in the military, I am saying that if something is protected by anti discrimination laws, then fitness tests and other performance tests WILL be adjusted to accommodate.
I understand what you're saying, but I don't share your assumption.
All I'm saying is that weight itself shouldn't be considered detrimental to job performance. It doesn't follow that fitness tests (for jobs that require them) should be adjusted. For jobs without fitness tests, job performance can be a sufficient evaluation.
Mostly, I agree that it wouldn't be the case. Job performance would typically be impacted by something related to weight like fitness, or girth* (for jobs that require maneuvering in small spaces), or agility.
I can think of cases where it would, though.
Race car drivers, jockeys and similar where your weight affects your speed and being lighter is better.
Professional dancers, and similar who are lifted by others.
Any job where they use equipment that has a safety rating lower than the employee's weight. Lots of construction equipment (think ladders, scaffolds, etc) are rated up to 300 or 400 lbs including the load, for example.
*Before anyone gets bent out of shape about girth, it's no different than not getting a job based on legitimate height requirements.
Those are all really good examples of jobs where weight might be an issue and since they can be clearly expressed in job qualifications, I can't see that they would be impacted by an anti-discrimination law. Your examples do change my mind about my initial statement, which was too broad and probably too influenced by my own employment history (sadly, no professional dance in my past).
Things like that aren't an issue now -- for example, I had a job where it was important to be able to supervise employees working in an area of the warehouse that could only be reached via ladders and stairs. Being able to get to those areas was an essential part of the job function and it is legal to let applicants know that and hire on that basis (even though it's illegal to not hire someone simply because their mobility is limited).
I think there is this misconception that anti-discrimination laws mean that anyone has to be hired for any job in any circumstance. But that isn't the case. If there are parts of the job that can be done by people with specific limitations or conditions, that's allowed.
I realize that, though in practice my HR department tends to be ridiculous about it. God forbid I fire someone that's in a protected class, regardless of how poorly they perform and how well that's been documented.
I can't for the life of me figure out how you'd word requirements for the race car driver to avoid triggering anti-discrimination laws - if there were such a law regarding weight and if 'race car driver' were a job that's ever posted. Maybe a time requirement in a test race using a specific car?
Or maybe jockey? I mean, doesn't everyone know that it's preferable to be shorter/lighter? I don't think they get a lot of 6'5 300lb linebacker types applying to race horses... It's all part of the performance requirements of the job.
You mean there are no sumo jockeys?! Say it ain't so!
That poor horse
3 -
I agree that real women come in all sizes - including skinny - since I was skinny in college despite making no effort I know that first hand - and that no women should be shamed for their appearance.wsandy8512 wrote: »I think the basic message of the movement is great, "love yourself", but where it's heading lately is what object to...
"Real women have curves", "Real men prefer meat, not bones", "Why don't they show a 'real' woman in that bathing suit (when the model isn't heavy)", etc.
It's turned from a loving yourself regardless of overweight/obese campaign, to bashing women of normal and healthy weights. "Real" women come in all shapes and sizes, period.
However, a typical fashion model is neither a healthy nor normal weight - she's severely underweight and in many cases maintains her weight using a deprivation diet which is dangerous to her heart. Depending on the magazine, she may have breasts surgically re-added. Underweight is more dangerous to health than moderate overweight. When models gain enough weight to be healthy, they are told they are "too fat for runway, too thin for plus" and receive no work.
It seems to me that 1) our culture desperately needs to learn what healthy weight looks like. When a woman with a BMI of 25 appears in a photo shoot and everyone applauds because a "plus sized model" made it in, that's messed up.
Even more important, 2) We need to stop regarding weight as a significator of virtue. It's not. I was underweight in college despite doing things like eating whole boxes of Oreos dipped in whipped cream at one sitting and never seeing a gym. Thirty years later, thanks to injuries, illness, and medications I'm obese and do 45 min of cardio daily plus alternating days of legs, arms and abs strength workouts, while eating 1500 calories of nutrient-dense whole foods daily. Was I more virtuous back then because I weighed less? Did I deserve to be praised then and do I deserve to be shamed now?
And most importantly, 3) Even if you believe fat people deserve to be shamed for some of their choices, does cruelty really accomplish that? Studies have found that belittling people makes them less likely to make healthy food and diet choices, not more likely.
I really like Modcloth's photo shoots. Their models run the gamut from super skinny to mobidly obese, and they all have this in common - they look like they believe they deserve to enjoy life. All people deserve to enjoy life, even people who may make less than optimal decisions about food.11 -
The problem, as I see it, is that people who do have extra weight are often treated as "less than". They're often judged as unhealthy at a glance (which is not always the case), are treated differently because of perceived limitations, and many people look at them with disgust in their eyes.
Even if a person WANTS to change, if they're taught to hate themselves for having extra weight - and that self-hatred is inherently success limiting. The brain, when exposed to negative thoughts, goes into self-defense mode. Self defense mode inhibits a person's ability to dream, to grow, to change. If we teach people to hate themselves into changing, we're teaching them to inhibit their ability to change and then beating them up when they don't succeed.
In my opinion.. the "fat acceptance" movement is NOT about fat acceptance as much as self-love. A person is loveable REGARDLESS of their skin suit. "Sexy" is not limited to a certain body fat percentage. Worthiness isn't either. Once you can look at yourself in the mirror and love who you are, you free yourself into opening up all the possibilities of who you CAN BECOME - on so many different planes.
I support learning to love yourself as you are. I support learning to see yourself as beautiful / handsome / wonderful regardless of the measurement your waistline. I support personal growth. I reject the idea of judging someone because they take up a different volume of space than I do.8 -
FindingAwesome wrote: »...A person is loveable REGARDLESS of their skin suit...
That phrase just grosses me out. Makes me think of Silence of the Lambs. Don't look at the spoiler below if you're squeamish.
3 -
Idk when I was 220 at my last physical all my tests came back great. The issues I do have are not weight related at all and I know I'm way more athletic then alot of my skinny my friends.
That being said, I don't want to be fat and will fix that. I do not just want to be healthy, I want to look it and feel it more when I'm mountain biking, kayaking and hiking.
That said idc how others live, wish some of my family members would try as well to get in better shape but it's their lives and you can't force them.1 -
FindingAwesome wrote: »The problem, as I see it, is that people who do have extra weight are often treated as "less than". They're often judged as unhealthy at a glance (which is not always the case), are treated differently because of perceived limitations, and many people look at them with disgust in their eyes.
Even if a person WANTS to change, if they're taught to hate themselves for having extra weight - and that self-hatred is inherently success limiting. The brain, when exposed to negative thoughts, goes into self-defense mode. Self defense mode inhibits a person's ability to dream, to grow, to change. If we teach people to hate themselves into changing, we're teaching them to inhibit their ability to change and then beating them up when they don't succeed.
In my opinion.. the "fat acceptance" movement is NOT about fat acceptance as much as self-love. A person is loveable REGARDLESS of their skin suit. "Sexy" is not limited to a certain body fat percentage. Worthiness isn't either. Once you can look at yourself in the mirror and love who you are, you free yourself into opening up all the possibilities of who you CAN BECOME - on so many different planes.
I support learning to love yourself as you are. I support learning to see yourself as beautiful / handsome / wonderful regardless of the measurement your waistline. I support personal growth. I reject the idea of judging someone because they take up a different volume of space than I do.
People up to class 1 obesity are the norm now in the US, they are not taught to hate themselves. This discussion is mostly about people who are class 3 obese, and they are statistically more unhealthy.
By default what is physically beautiful or sexy must be reflected in physicality, pretending otherwise is inane. You can't force the world to unilaterally adopt rubenesque values of beauty.3 -
FindingAwesome wrote: »The problem, as I see it, is that people who do have extra weight are often treated as "less than". They're often judged as unhealthy at a glance (which is not always the case), are treated differently because of perceived limitations, and many people look at them with disgust in their eyes.
Even if a person WANTS to change, if they're taught to hate themselves for having extra weight - and that self-hatred is inherently success limiting. The brain, when exposed to negative thoughts, goes into self-defense mode. Self defense mode inhibits a person's ability to dream, to grow, to change. If we teach people to hate themselves into changing, we're teaching them to inhibit their ability to change and then beating them up when they don't succeed.
In my opinion.. the "fat acceptance" movement is NOT about fat acceptance as much as self-love. A person is loveable REGARDLESS of their skin suit. "Sexy" is not limited to a certain body fat percentage. Worthiness isn't either. Once you can look at yourself in the mirror and love who you are, you free yourself into opening up all the possibilities of who you CAN BECOME - on so many different planes.
I support learning to love yourself as you are. I support learning to see yourself as beautiful / handsome / wonderful regardless of the measurement your waistline. I support personal growth. I reject the idea of judging someone because they take up a different volume of space than I do.
This is perfect. I've actually decided to no longer participate in any "debate" on here...due to the unnecessary stress and misery involved. But I saw this and just wanted to acknowledge this and it's insightfulness. Well done!4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Geocitiesuser wrote: »calorielogonly wrote: »THE POINT IS....MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS. I AM TRYING TO LOSE WEIGHT AND WHY SHOULD ANYONE ELSE CARE?
That's the exact opposite of HAES/FA. HAES is insisting that fat is healthy and "beautiful". It is not. HAES is an active political movement to try to change people's perception of disgusting narcisists who think a political movement to be "beautiful" is less work than just eating less.
What specific laws are you concerned they will get passed or what specific things do you think they will achieve.
As I've mentioned, I don't see them as powerful or socially prominent at all, and if anything I find awareness of obesity as a health risk is nearly universal and certainly more common than it was when I was a kid.
The most concerning to me is getting weight added to the list of categories against which discrimination is illegal because in that case they can force cost-prohibitive accommodations on businesses, and and make it difficult not to hire (or to fire) employees whose weight is detrimental to their job performance.
In what kind of job would weight itself be detrimental to job performance? I understand lack of fitness being an issue, but I've worked in busy kitchens and warehouses with overweight people. Some of them did quite well, others didn't. I understand that many overweight people are unfit, but so are some thin people. I would rather evaluate someone by how they did a job.
policemen? firemen?
Wouldn't that be a fitness issue? Police officers and fire fighters have fitness tests. That wouldn't change if it became illegal to discriminate against overweight people. We'd eliminating the possibility of the presumption that overweight people are automatically unfit by the mere virtue of being overweight.
I fully anticipate that many (if not most) overweight people would fail the fitness tests. But since we have the test in place for those roles, why not go by that?
But if the fitness test is deemed to be discriminatory, the standards will be adjusted. This happened in the military. The fitness tests for Marines, Navy Seals, Army Rangers, etc had standards that were too high for women to physically do. They were deemed to be sexist and adjusted so that women could join up. Now when the military sets up teams, they never set up all women teams because they know the males will have to "help" the females through some of the more physically demanding bits ( carrying gear, getting over obstacles, lugging wounded around, etc). I'm not saying women should never be in the military, I am saying that if something is protected by anti discrimination laws, then fitness tests and other performance tests WILL be adjusted to accommodate.
I understand what you're saying, but I don't share your assumption.
All I'm saying is that weight itself shouldn't be considered detrimental to job performance. It doesn't follow that fitness tests (for jobs that require them) should be adjusted. For jobs without fitness tests, job performance can be a sufficient evaluation.
Mostly, I agree that it wouldn't be the case. Job performance would typically be impacted by something related to weight like fitness, or girth* (for jobs that require maneuvering in small spaces), or agility.
I can think of cases where it would, though.
Race car drivers, jockeys and similar where your weight affects your speed and being lighter is better.
Professional dancers, and similar who are lifted by others.
Any job where they use equipment that has a safety rating lower than the employee's weight. Lots of construction equipment (think ladders, scaffolds, etc) are rated up to 300 or 400 lbs including the load, for example.
*Before anyone gets bent out of shape about girth, it's no different than not getting a job based on legitimate height requirements.
Those are all really good examples of jobs where weight might be an issue and since they can be clearly expressed in job qualifications, I can't see that they would be impacted by an anti-discrimination law. Your examples do change my mind about my initial statement, which was too broad and probably too influenced by my own employment history (sadly, no professional dance in my past).
Things like that aren't an issue now -- for example, I had a job where it was important to be able to supervise employees working in an area of the warehouse that could only be reached via ladders and stairs. Being able to get to those areas was an essential part of the job function and it is legal to let applicants know that and hire on that basis (even though it's illegal to not hire someone simply because their mobility is limited).
I think there is this misconception that anti-discrimination laws mean that anyone has to be hired for any job in any circumstance. But that isn't the case. If there are parts of the job that can be done by people with specific limitations or conditions, that's allowed.
I realize that, though in practice my HR department tends to be ridiculous about it. God forbid I fire someone that's in a protected class, regardless of how poorly they perform and how well that's been documented.
I can't for the life of me figure out how you'd word requirements for the race car driver to avoid triggering anti-discrimination laws - if there were such a law regarding weight and if 'race car driver' were a job that's ever posted. Maybe a time requirement in a test race using a specific car?
Or maybe jockey? I mean, doesn't everyone know that it's preferable to be shorter/lighter? I don't think they get a lot of 6'5 300lb linebacker types applying to race horses... It's all part of the performance requirements of the job.
You mean there are no sumo jockeys?! Say it ain't so!
That poor horse
Somehow he is out in front though.
2 -
FindingAwesome wrote: »In my opinion.. the "fat acceptance" movement is NOT about fat acceptance as much as self-love. A person is loveable REGARDLESS of their skin suit. "Sexy" is not limited to a certain body fat percentage. Worthiness isn't either. Once you can look at yourself in the mirror and love who you are, you free yourself into opening up all the possibilities of who you CAN BECOME - on so many different planes.
The leading voices in fat acceptance disagree strongly with your notion of what it is. People like Kelli Jean Drinkwater, Ragen Chastain, Virgie Tovar, Jeanette DePattie, Julianne Wotasik, Kath Reid, Whitney Way Thore, and Tess Holliday not only promote fatness as a positive thing, but they have all attacked fit, normal weight women over their bodies. These people who supposedly are about body positivity and eschew "body shaming" are quick to insult normal weight fit women by calling them sticks, saying bones are for dogs, real women have curves, that a BMI of 21 is unrealistic, and one of them (Thore) actually made a video wherein she and a group of fat women held a thin woman down on a table and forced cupcakes into her mouth. Thin shaming is defended as justified. Ragen Chastain dispensed medical advice that a woman should go blind rather than lose weight.
And let's not even get into the problem of planes, where I am almost guaranteed that flying coach will involve a fat person encroaching on my seat.7 -
Dear Posters,
As you continue to debate please keep the following guidelines in mind:
1. No Attacks or Insults and No Reciprocation
a) Do not attack, mock, or otherwise insult others. You can respectfully disagree with the message or topic, but you cannot attack the messenger. This includes attacks against the user’s spelling or command of written English, or belittling a user for posting a duplicate topic.
b) If you are attacked by another user, and you reciprocate, you will also be subject to the same consequences. Defending yourself or a friend is not an excuse! Do not take matters into your own hands – instead, use the Report Post link to report an attack and we will be happy to handle the situation for you.
2. No Trolling or Flame-baiting
Please either contribute politely and constructively to a topic, or move on without posting. This includes posts that encourage the drama in a topic to escalate, or posts intended to incite an uproar from the community.
The guidelines can be found here if you need a refresher:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/welcome/guidelines
Sincerely,
4legs0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Geocitiesuser wrote: »calorielogonly wrote: »THE POINT IS....MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS. I AM TRYING TO LOSE WEIGHT AND WHY SHOULD ANYONE ELSE CARE?
That's the exact opposite of HAES/FA. HAES is insisting that fat is healthy and "beautiful". It is not. HAES is an active political movement to try to change people's perception of disgusting narcisists who think a political movement to be "beautiful" is less work than just eating less.
What specific laws are you concerned they will get passed or what specific things do you think they will achieve.
As I've mentioned, I don't see them as powerful or socially prominent at all, and if anything I find awareness of obesity as a health risk is nearly universal and certainly more common than it was when I was a kid.
The most concerning to me is getting weight added to the list of categories against which discrimination is illegal because in that case they can force cost-prohibitive accommodations on businesses, and and make it difficult not to hire (or to fire) employees whose weight is detrimental to their job performance.
In what kind of job would weight itself be detrimental to job performance? I understand lack of fitness being an issue, but I've worked in busy kitchens and warehouses with overweight people. Some of them did quite well, others didn't. I understand that many overweight people are unfit, but so are some thin people. I would rather evaluate someone by how they did a job.
policemen? firemen?
Wouldn't that be a fitness issue? Police officers and fire fighters have fitness tests. That wouldn't change if it became illegal to discriminate against overweight people. We'd eliminating the possibility of the presumption that overweight people are automatically unfit by the mere virtue of being overweight.
I fully anticipate that many (if not most) overweight people would fail the fitness tests. But since we have the test in place for those roles, why not go by that?
But if the fitness test is deemed to be discriminatory, the standards will be adjusted. This happened in the military. The fitness tests for Marines, Navy Seals, Army Rangers, etc had standards that were too high for women to physically do. They were deemed to be sexist and adjusted so that women could join up. Now when the military sets up teams, they never set up all women teams because they know the males will have to "help" the females through some of the more physically demanding bits ( carrying gear, getting over obstacles, lugging wounded around, etc). I'm not saying women should never be in the military, I am saying that if something is protected by anti discrimination laws, then fitness tests and other performance tests WILL be adjusted to accommodate.
I understand what you're saying, but I don't share your assumption.
All I'm saying is that weight itself shouldn't be considered detrimental to job performance. It doesn't follow that fitness tests (for jobs that require them) should be adjusted. For jobs without fitness tests, job performance can be a sufficient evaluation.
Mostly, I agree that it wouldn't be the case. Job performance would typically be impacted by something related to weight like fitness, or girth* (for jobs that require maneuvering in small spaces), or agility.
I can think of cases where it would, though.
Race car drivers, jockeys and similar where your weight affects your speed and being lighter is better.
Professional dancers, and similar who are lifted by others.
Any job where they use equipment that has a safety rating lower than the employee's weight. Lots of construction equipment (think ladders, scaffolds, etc) are rated up to 300 or 400 lbs including the load, for example.
*Before anyone gets bent out of shape about girth, it's no different than not getting a job based on legitimate height requirements.
Those are all really good examples of jobs where weight might be an issue and since they can be clearly expressed in job qualifications, I can't see that they would be impacted by an anti-discrimination law. Your examples do change my mind about my initial statement, which was too broad and probably too influenced by my own employment history (sadly, no professional dance in my past).
Things like that aren't an issue now -- for example, I had a job where it was important to be able to supervise employees working in an area of the warehouse that could only be reached via ladders and stairs. Being able to get to those areas was an essential part of the job function and it is legal to let applicants know that and hire on that basis (even though it's illegal to not hire someone simply because their mobility is limited).
I think there is this misconception that anti-discrimination laws mean that anyone has to be hired for any job in any circumstance. But that isn't the case. If there are parts of the job that can be done by people with specific limitations or conditions, that's allowed.
I realize that, though in practice my HR department tends to be ridiculous about it. God forbid I fire someone that's in a protected class, regardless of how poorly they perform and how well that's been documented.
I can't for the life of me figure out how you'd word requirements for the race car driver to avoid triggering anti-discrimination laws - if there were such a law regarding weight and if 'race car driver' were a job that's ever posted. Maybe a time requirement in a test race using a specific car?
I completely understand that different companies will apply the rules in different ways. I've also had issues with specific write-ups/terminations, so I get it.
"Race car driver" isn't really a open position that is listed in job listings and people apply for, so I don't know if it is useful for the purposes of this discussion. I mean, I'm not an expert, but don't companies choose their drivers on the basis of past performance/future potential? It's about results and if you don't want someone as your driver due to their performance, it's as simple as that (I think).0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Geocitiesuser wrote: »calorielogonly wrote: »THE POINT IS....MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS. I AM TRYING TO LOSE WEIGHT AND WHY SHOULD ANYONE ELSE CARE?
That's the exact opposite of HAES/FA. HAES is insisting that fat is healthy and "beautiful". It is not. HAES is an active political movement to try to change people's perception of disgusting narcisists who think a political movement to be "beautiful" is less work than just eating less.
What specific laws are you concerned they will get passed or what specific things do you think they will achieve.
As I've mentioned, I don't see them as powerful or socially prominent at all, and if anything I find awareness of obesity as a health risk is nearly universal and certainly more common than it was when I was a kid.
The most concerning to me is getting weight added to the list of categories against which discrimination is illegal because in that case they can force cost-prohibitive accommodations on businesses, and and make it difficult not to hire (or to fire) employees whose weight is detrimental to their job performance.
In what kind of job would weight itself be detrimental to job performance? I understand lack of fitness being an issue, but I've worked in busy kitchens and warehouses with overweight people. Some of them did quite well, others didn't. I understand that many overweight people are unfit, but so are some thin people. I would rather evaluate someone by how they did a job.
policemen? firemen?
Wouldn't that be a fitness issue? Police officers and fire fighters have fitness tests. That wouldn't change if it became illegal to discriminate against overweight people. We'd eliminating the possibility of the presumption that overweight people are automatically unfit by the mere virtue of being overweight.
I fully anticipate that many (if not most) overweight people would fail the fitness tests. But since we have the test in place for those roles, why not go by that?
But if the fitness test is deemed to be discriminatory, the standards will be adjusted. This happened in the military. The fitness tests for Marines, Navy Seals, Army Rangers, etc had standards that were too high for women to physically do. They were deemed to be sexist and adjusted so that women could join up. Now when the military sets up teams, they never set up all women teams because they know the males will have to "help" the females through some of the more physically demanding bits ( carrying gear, getting over obstacles, lugging wounded around, etc). I'm not saying women should never be in the military, I am saying that if something is protected by anti discrimination laws, then fitness tests and other performance tests WILL be adjusted to accommodate.
I understand what you're saying, but I don't share your assumption.
All I'm saying is that weight itself shouldn't be considered detrimental to job performance. It doesn't follow that fitness tests (for jobs that require them) should be adjusted. For jobs without fitness tests, job performance can be a sufficient evaluation.
At least my "assumption" is based on the historical facts of how anti discrimination laws have affected fitness tests to accommodate less physically able people in the real world. Your assumption appears to be based on some sort of alternate reality. You're welcome to it.
My position is based on my actual experience hiring and supervising people in kitchens and warehouses, some of whom have been protected by various existing anti-discrimination laws. An anti-discrimination law doesn't change the fact that jobs can have fitness tests related to the demands of the job and it doesn't change the fact that employers can outline essential functions of the job that applicants must be able to perform.
If you're determined to dismiss actual experience, law, and current practices as "alternative reality," I guess there isn't much basis for this conversation to continue. I wish you the best.
Goodness me. So your experience in a kitchen qualifies you to dismiss my comment about fitness test adjustments in the military as a result of anti discrimination laws. Unfortunately, what you don't know is that I had 18yrs in the military retiring at the LtCol level so I am intimately familiar with what I am talking about. I honestly don't think kitchen or warehouse work really equates to jobs that were mentioned like police, firemen, military etc as much as you may think it does.
I suggest you stay in the kitchen and not critique comments that are obviously beyond your realm of experience.
I respect your experience in your area, you seem unwilling to extend the same courtesy to me.
Kitchen and warehouse work is different than working in the military. That goes both ways -- to your comments as well as mine. That's why I brought up my different experience, because your field is not the totality of the US working experience. From your tone, it seems like you think it is less important (why else the jab about me "staying in the kitchen"?). Maybe learning more about it would help you understand the scope of the discussion beyond the police and military. Lots of people in the US work in service industries and how anti-discrimination laws would be applied there is also applicable to the conversation.11 -
Couple comments on discrimination and obesity related to fitness for work. Some interesting points:
http://www.rmmagazine.com/2014/11/01/obesitys-impact-on-workers-compensation/
Obesity Weighs on Workers Comp Claims
Obese workers generally experience more injuries and more expensive claims due to a host of health conditions. Studies show that obesity is already having a profound impact on workers compensation, including:
1. Increased frequency of injury. In 2007, Duke University performed a landmark study, “Obesity Increases Workers Compensation Costs.” Researchers found that, on average, obese workers filed twice as many workers compensation claims as their non-obese counterparts.
2. Higher incidence of comorbidities. As previously noted, obesity increases the risk of comorbid conditions, such as high blood pressure and diabetes, which can create medical complications. For example, if an obese injured worker has diabetes, the healing process may be hindered, slowing recovery and return-to-work.
3. Increased severity. Obese workers often experience injuries that are more severe because extra weight generates increased force during an accident. If an obese worker experiences a slip and fall, for example, there may be significantly more impact and, thus, damage to the back or vulnerable joints like wrists, ankles and knees. Further, obese individuals may already suffer from orthopedic problems and osteoarthritis.
4. Increased medical costs. The Duke study found that claims filed by obese employees cost seven times more than similar claims from non-obese workers.
5. Higher indemnity costs. In addition, weight-challenged claimants miss 13 times more days of work than claimants with a normal BMI. In a 2010 study, the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) found that the duration of indemnity benefits paid is at least five times greater.
6. Greater risk of disability. The 2010 NCCI study also found that obese workers were more likely to become permanently disabled.
7. Additional complications. There are myriad additional risks and complications. For example, obese individuals have an increased incidence of depression and other mental health issues, which can make them more susceptible to opioid abuse. Or, if they undergo surgery, there is a high danger of complications, such as blood clots. Medical and workers compensation professionals must be watchful for these risks and work to mitigate them.
1 -
misshoneyz2dab wrote: »I'm 5'4 and I weigh 13 stones 4lbs ( 188lbs) and I want to be 10 stones (140lbs) I've lost 21 lbs so far.
I don't support the plus size or fat acceptance movement, because it promotes unhealthiness. Overweight and Obesity can lead to type 2 diabetes, hypertension, . hypercholesterolemia, stroke, joint pains and CHD.
Two years ago when I went for a blood test. My blood cholesterol level was 5.2 that was all to do with my unhealthy lifestyle and weight. That was a wake up call for me.
When I critique the plus size and fat acceptance movement, I get accused of being a shallow bully. I have heard a lot of the supporters saying that you can be fat and healthy at the same time-which is absolute nonsense!
I'm a plus size woman and I'm not happy with my size or health. I'm doing a lot about my weight.
I find that I accept most people regardless of their size. If they're happy with their lives and in their skin, I cannot tell them it's not right. We're on this earth so briefly that if you can find happiness, embrace it.3 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Couple comments on discrimination and obesity related to fitness for work. Some interesting points:
http://www.rmmagazine.com/2014/11/01/obesitys-impact-on-workers-compensation/
Obesity Weighs on Workers Comp Claims
Obese workers generally experience more injuries and more expensive claims due to a host of health conditions. Studies show that obesity is already having a profound impact on workers compensation, including:
1. Increased frequency of injury. In 2007, Duke University performed a landmark study, “Obesity Increases Workers Compensation Costs.” Researchers found that, on average, obese workers filed twice as many workers compensation claims as their non-obese counterparts.
2. Higher incidence of comorbidities. As previously noted, obesity increases the risk of comorbid conditions, such as high blood pressure and diabetes, which can create medical complications. For example, if an obese injured worker has diabetes, the healing process may be hindered, slowing recovery and return-to-work.
3. Increased severity. Obese workers often experience injuries that are more severe because extra weight generates increased force during an accident. If an obese worker experiences a slip and fall, for example, there may be significantly more impact and, thus, damage to the back or vulnerable joints like wrists, ankles and knees. Further, obese individuals may already suffer from orthopedic problems and osteoarthritis.
4. Increased medical costs. The Duke study found that claims filed by obese employees cost seven times more than similar claims from non-obese workers.
5. Higher indemnity costs. In addition, weight-challenged claimants miss 13 times more days of work than claimants with a normal BMI. In a 2010 study, the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) found that the duration of indemnity benefits paid is at least five times greater.
6. Greater risk of disability. The 2010 NCCI study also found that obese workers were more likely to become permanently disabled.
7. Additional complications. There are myriad additional risks and complications. For example, obese individuals have an increased incidence of depression and other mental health issues, which can make them more susceptible to opioid abuse. Or, if they undergo surgery, there is a high danger of complications, such as blood clots. Medical and workers compensation professionals must be watchful for these risks and work to mitigate them.
This is an interesting collection of information.
Number 3 is certainly supported by my own anecdotal experiences. I've seen workplace injuries related to falls that seemed to be much worse because of the impact involved with the particular individual falling. For example, falling from a piece of equipment and being stopped by a safety harness is unpleasant for anyone, but it's particularly unpleasant for people who are heavier -- it's just more jarring. It seems to me like the initial injury is often worse for heavier people and the recovery can take longer.2 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »FindingAwesome wrote: »In my opinion.. the "fat acceptance" movement is NOT about fat acceptance as much as self-love. A person is loveable REGARDLESS of their skin suit. "Sexy" is not limited to a certain body fat percentage. Worthiness isn't either. Once you can look at yourself in the mirror and love who you are, you free yourself into opening up all the possibilities of who you CAN BECOME - on so many different planes.
The leading voices in fat acceptance disagree strongly with your notion of what it is. People like Kelli Jean Drinkwater, Ragen Chastain, Virgie Tovar, Jeanette DePattie, Julianne Wotasik, Kath Reid, Whitney Way Thore, and Tess Holliday not only promote fatness as a positive thing, but they have all attacked fit, normal weight women over their bodies. These people who supposedly are about body positivity and eschew "body shaming" are quick to insult normal weight fit women by calling them sticks, saying bones are for dogs, real women have curves, that a BMI of 21 is unrealistic, and one of them (Thore) actually made a video wherein she and a group of fat women held a thin woman down on a table and forced cupcakes into her mouth. Thin shaming is defended as justified. Ragen Chastain dispensed medical advice that a woman should go blind rather than lose weight.
And let's not even get into the problem of planes, where I am almost guaranteed that flying coach will involve a fat person encroaching on my seat.
I clearly disagree with that extreme too. Retaliation "for a cause" is just as unacceptable as the reason for creating the cause in the first place. I am lean and muscular, and there are times where I've felt like I was being mocked for being "a stick" or "sack of bones" or having "no curves". IMO, that's JUST as bad.
As I said before... I promote the fact that people are worthy of respect and love, regardless of what they look like or what lifestyle they lead (as long as they're not hurting people / things).
Call that what you will... I'll call it person acceptance.
I learned, maybe through the help of some well timed karma, that judging people will never go well. We all have our failings. I may be lean and strong, but I often have a crappy diet - it doesn't mean I'm healthier than someone who is overweight, because they may work out hard and eat healthy, but in larger portions.
My house is glass. I dropped all my stones a long time ago.5
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions