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.

1…34689…13

Replies

  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited May 2017
    Macy9336 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.

    Are you claiming this happened because of Congressional legislation and courts interpreting that legislation to require this? If so, could you identify the relevant cases.

    Also, maybe something saying the requirements for Navy Seals have changed, as this seems to suggest otherwise: https://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2016/04/19/navy-seals-now-open-women-but-none-has-stepped-forward/82982558/

    I am aware of how the law is applied with respect to fire departments and police departments, which is why the specifics of the law matters (if one thinks it is a problem).

    Again, I don't think it's a good idea to add more protected classes without a strong showing of need (which I believe exist/ed with race and sex). But the inherent effect of such a law is not disallowing reasonable job requirements.

    Granted "obese people are absent more" would not be a basis for not hiring obese people, but actual absenteeism would be a reason for firing someone, obviously.
  • besaro
    besaro Posts: 1,858 Member
    so what.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    WayTooHonest wrote: »
    Accepting yourself does not mean you cannot desire improvement.

    This is so true -- for me it actually meant I was more likely to work on self-improvement and feel it was possible and not hopeless.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    tomteboda wrote: »
    heiliskrimsli wrote: »
    moya_bleh wrote: »
    I think that the thread title is a bit of a misnomer. It should be more of "I don't support what some aspects of the fat acceptance/plus size movement are turning it into" rather than a refusal to support ANY facet of it at all.

    There are many posters on here who genuinely aren't aware of the ramblings of Virgie Tovar, Marilyn Wann, Lindy West, Jes Baker, Ragen Chastain, Desiree Meyers-Liebowitz, the concepts of "thin privilege", "fatphobia" and the many hypocritical articles posted on sites like Ravishly, Revelist etc. alomg with the toxic filth that permeates Tumblr and other forms of social media. These are the aspects of the fat acceptance movement that I rail against, not the concept of body positivity itself.

    Be comfortable in your own skin regardless of your size (or anything else for that matter) = Good

    "Be fat like us, or you are a thin privileged, fatphobic traitor" = Bad. Very bad.

    The people that you mentioned, along with Jeanette DePattie, Julianne Wotasik, Kath Reid, and a few others whose names escape me at the moment are definitely pushing the message that thin (normal BMI, not underweight) is bad. They're shoehorning it into university curricula in the social sciences too: "fat studies" to go along with women's studies, black studies, gender studies and gay studies classes. And then to add another layer to it, the classes get criticized for not having enough fat people in them or teaching them. Fat acceptance in my observation is more about fit hate than anything else.

    In other words, Marxist Critical Theory as appplied to physical appearance, with the concept of thin, healthy people as oppressors and all others as oppressed is really ridiculous.

    This is the way all Critical Theory proponents work. They pick something that no normal, compassionate person would be against (like believing all people, regardless of body size or physical ability are worthwhile human beings). Then they co-opt that as their "central message" and spin off identity politics and the oppression Olympics. When you confront the ridiculous demands and conclusions that their Marxist philosophy leads them to, they then say "you hate (name oppressed group here)". In this case fat people.

    It's really too bad, because many problems are correctly observed by critical theorists, but their framework of thought leads them to "solutions" that are as bad, if not worse, than the problem because they're so tied up in the oppressor/oppressed mentality.

    I tend to think that's an accurate take on Crit. Theory (of which I am also not much of a fan), although you and I might not agree on the correct solutions for whatever it is either, depending, since I'm also not libertarian (this is assuming that my memory serves me).

    This was interesting/odd: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/11/03/fat-studies-colleges-hot-new-course

    I suspect a bit that this may be exaggerated the way a lot of college campus stuff is, but certainly absurd things happen at colleges (even back in the day when I was there, although for whatever reason I saw it as such).
  • JeanieWww
    JeanieWww Posts: 4,037 Member
    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 think you MIGHT be missing the point of the so-called "fat acceptance" movement.

    It's not the fat they are focusing on. The focus should be on the person's inside (character, integrity, morals, personality) despite what they look like on the outside. It's the same as saying, don't judge a book by it's cover.

    They happen to be people with valid feelings, just like anyone else. Would you shame a person who broke their hand out of carelessness, or accept that hey, it's broke. Hopefully they take care of it so it can heal. But they are still a person and don't deserve to be put down just because they can't do what everyone else can. They are fully capable of being loved and loving.

    Same with someone who is heavy. Some who are heavy are that way from bad choices. Yes, we hope they start making better ones, but who are we to look down our noses at them? Are we so much better? No. We all have our own faults, mistakes, issues, areas of imperfection. Theirs is just a bit more obvious.

    As a society, the majority of us go "Ewwwww" if someone has a bit of fluff. WHY? Because it's not "sexy"? Because it's not a turn-on for most? That isn't the heavy-set person's problem. It's actually the beholder's problem. But they take their feelings of discomfort out on others, making them feel ashamed. Maybe some actually have a reason to be ashamed, but others do not. It boils down to judgment. Judging others shows more of who we are, not more of who someone else is. It's self-reflective.

    I applaud you for realizing you're not as healthy as you can be, and striving to do something about it. Keep in mind, that sometimes others may feel that no matter what they try, that they will fail. They may have a medical condition that keeps them struggling more than others. Could be that they may have a mental condition that they struggle with. We don't really KNOW just by looking at a chunky, fluffy, pudgy.. so rather than casting a condemning judgement, the movement is more like.. over look the outside, because you don't KNOW what's going on, get to know a person for who they really are, because in the end, all of our bodies change, none of us are perfect, and you make yourself look like a schmuck in the end, not them.
  • tomteboda
    tomteboda Posts: 2,171 Member
    edited May 2017
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    tomteboda wrote: »
    heiliskrimsli wrote: »
    moya_bleh wrote: »
    I think that the thread title is a bit of a misnomer. It should be more of "I don't support what some aspects of the fat acceptance/plus size movement are turning it into" rather than a refusal to support ANY facet of it at all.

    There are many posters on here who genuinely aren't aware of the ramblings of Virgie Tovar, Marilyn Wann, Lindy West, Jes Baker, Ragen Chastain, Desiree Meyers-Liebowitz, the concepts of "thin privilege", "fatphobia" and the many hypocritical articles posted on sites like Ravishly, Revelist etc. alomg with the toxic filth that permeates Tumblr and other forms of social media. These are the aspects of the fat acceptance movement that I rail against, not the concept of body positivity itself.

    Be comfortable in your own skin regardless of your size (or anything else for that matter) = Good

    "Be fat like us, or you are a thin privileged, fatphobic traitor" = Bad. Very bad.

    The people that you mentioned, along with Jeanette DePattie, Julianne Wotasik, Kath Reid, and a few others whose names escape me at the moment are definitely pushing the message that thin (normal BMI, not underweight) is bad. They're shoehorning it into university curricula in the social sciences too: "fat studies" to go along with women's studies, black studies, gender studies and gay studies classes. And then to add another layer to it, the classes get criticized for not having enough fat people in them or teaching them. Fat acceptance in my observation is more about fit hate than anything else.

    In other words, Marxist Critical Theory as appplied to physical appearance, with the concept of thin, healthy people as oppressors and all others as oppressed is really ridiculous.

    This is the way all Critical Theory proponents work. They pick something that no normal, compassionate person would be against (like believing all people, regardless of body size or physical ability are worthwhile human beings). Then they co-opt that as their "central message" and spin off identity politics and the oppression Olympics. When you confront the ridiculous demands and conclusions that their Marxist philosophy leads them to, they then say "you hate (name oppressed group here)". In this case fat people.

    It's really too bad, because many problems are correctly observed by critical theorists, but their framework of thought leads them to "solutions" that are as bad, if not worse, than the problem because they're so tied up in the oppressor/oppressed mentality.

    I tend to think that's an accurate take on Crit. Theory (of which I am also not much of a fan), although you and I might not agree on the correct solutions for whatever it is either, depending, since I'm also not libertarian (this is assuming that my memory serves me).

    This was interesting/odd: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/11/03/fat-studies-colleges-hot-new-course

    I suspect a bit that this may be exaggerated the way a lot of college campus stuff is, but certainly absurd things happen at colleges (even back in the day when I was there, although for whatever reason I saw it as such).

    I call myself libertarian - leaning. If anything, the lable that fits best is classical liberal, and advocate of Austrian economics.
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,727 Member
    tomteboda wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    tomteboda wrote: »
    heiliskrimsli wrote: »
    moya_bleh wrote: »
    I think that the thread title is a bit of a misnomer. It should be more of "I don't support what some aspects of the fat acceptance/plus size movement are turning it into" rather than a refusal to support ANY facet of it at all.

    There are many posters on here who genuinely aren't aware of the ramblings of Virgie Tovar, Marilyn Wann, Lindy West, Jes Baker, Ragen Chastain, Desiree Meyers-Liebowitz, the concepts of "thin privilege", "fatphobia" and the many hypocritical articles posted on sites like Ravishly, Revelist etc. alomg with the toxic filth that permeates Tumblr and other forms of social media. These are the aspects of the fat acceptance movement that I rail against, not the concept of body positivity itself.

    Be comfortable in your own skin regardless of your size (or anything else for that matter) = Good

    "Be fat like us, or you are a thin privileged, fatphobic traitor" = Bad. Very bad.

    The people that you mentioned, along with Jeanette DePattie, Julianne Wotasik, Kath Reid, and a few others whose names escape me at the moment are definitely pushing the message that thin (normal BMI, not underweight) is bad. They're shoehorning it into university curricula in the social sciences too: "fat studies" to go along with women's studies, black studies, gender studies and gay studies classes. And then to add another layer to it, the classes get criticized for not having enough fat people in them or teaching them. Fat acceptance in my observation is more about fit hate than anything else.

    In other words, Marxist Critical Theory as appplied to physical appearance, with the concept of thin, healthy people as oppressors and all others as oppressed is really ridiculous.

    This is the way all Critical Theory proponents work. They pick something that no normal, compassionate person would be against (like believing all people, regardless of body size or physical ability are worthwhile human beings). Then they co-opt that as their "central message" and spin off identity politics and the oppression Olympics. When you confront the ridiculous demands and conclusions that their Marxist philosophy leads them to, they then say "you hate (name oppressed group here)". In this case fat people.

    It's really too bad, because many problems are correctly observed by critical theorists, but their framework of thought leads them to "solutions" that are as bad, if not worse, than the problem because they're so tied up in the oppressor/oppressed mentality.

    I tend to think that's an accurate take on Crit. Theory (of which I am also not much of a fan), although you and I might not agree on the correct solutions for whatever it is either, depending, since I'm also not libertarian (this is assuming that my memory serves me).

    This was interesting/odd: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/11/03/fat-studies-colleges-hot-new-course

    I suspect a bit that this may be exaggerated the way a lot of college campus stuff is, but certainly absurd things happen at colleges (even back in the day when I was there, although for whatever reason I saw it as such).

    I call myself libertarian - learning. If anything, the lable that fits best is classical liberal, and advocate of Austrian economics.

    I prefer rational anarchist, as a term, because it acknowledges that some people need government, rules, and laws in order to feel comfortable, while acknowledging the reality that each person in the moment of action is solely responsible for carrying out an order.
  • msf74
    msf74 Posts: 3,498 Member
    stanmann571 wrote: »

    I prefer rational anarchist, as a term, because it acknowledges that some people need government, rules, and laws in order to feel comfortable, while acknowledging the reality that each person in the moment of action is solely responsible for carrying out an order.

    I think that's minarchism (as opposed to anarcho-capitalism which favours the elimination of the state entirely in favour of individual sovereignty.)

  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,727 Member
    msf74 wrote: »
    stanmann571 wrote: »

    I prefer rational anarchist, as a term, because it acknowledges that some people need government, rules, and laws in order to feel comfortable, while acknowledging the reality that each person in the moment of action is solely responsible for carrying out an order.

    I think that's minarchism (as opposed to anarcho-capitalism which favours the elimination of the state entirely in favour of individual sovereignty.)


    It's actually Heinlein... and rather more nuanced than I put in... mostly because I didn't want to derail the discussion... although, the discussion has rather run it's course
  • Thehardmakesitworthit
    Thehardmakesitworthit Posts: 838 Member
    msf74 wrote: »
    misshoneyz2dab wrote: »
    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 wouldn't say that. It is possible to be fat and in good health but it is statistically less likely than being at an appropriate weight and healthy - it's playing the odds.

    Movements tend to be defined by their leaders and / or loudest voices. The big problem with much "social justice" type activism these days is the militancy of the parts of them which gets the most airtime and in my opinion is a huge turn off for all but the true believers. Fat acceptance / body positivity seems to have fallen into that trap which is a shame as think that with a more reasonable approach it could do a fair amount of good and lessen prejudicial attitudes which conflate weight and moral virtue and human worth.

    So well said. My eldest daughter is obese. She is beautiful. And Obese. And I am so glad that she loves herself and has (outwardly because I am not convinced that she does not feel sorrow to) walked tall and proud as her beautiful self regardless of what society thinks.
  • heiliskrimsli
    heiliskrimsli Posts: 735 Member
    edited May 2017
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    heiliskrimsli wrote: »
    moya_bleh wrote: »
    I think that the thread title is a bit of a misnomer. It should be more of "I don't support what some aspects of the fat acceptance/plus size movement are turning it into" rather than a refusal to support ANY facet of it at all.

    There are many posters on here who genuinely aren't aware of the ramblings of Virgie Tovar, Marilyn Wann, Lindy West, Jes Baker, Ragen Chastain, Desiree Meyers-Liebowitz, the concepts of "thin privilege", "fatphobia" and the many hypocritical articles posted on sites like Ravishly, Revelist etc. alomg with the toxic filth that permeates Tumblr and other forms of social media. These are the aspects of the fat acceptance movement that I rail against, not the concept of body positivity itself.

    Be comfortable in your own skin regardless of your size (or anything else for that matter) = Good

    "Be fat like us, or you are a thin privileged, fatphobic traitor" = Bad. Very bad.

    The people that you mentioned, along with Jeanette DePattie, Julianne Wotasik, Kath Reid, and a few others whose names escape me at the moment are definitely pushing the message that thin (normal BMI, not underweight) is bad. They're shoehorning it into university curricula in the social sciences too: "fat studies" to go along with women's studies, black studies, gender studies and gay studies classes. And then to add another layer to it, the classes get criticized for not having enough fat people in them or teaching them. Fat acceptance in my observation is more about fit hate than anything else.

    Are there extreme examples like those cited in the post you quoted, where there is legitimate and over the top shaming going on in the Fat Acceptance movement? Of course. These attitudes are unacceptable, but they are also extreme outliers.


    They're the most recognizable names in the FA/HAES circles, and the ones who are on television promoting it, on the web promoting it, helping to write "fat studies" curricula for universities, and organizing conferences about it. They most definitely are not simply "extreme outliers". They're leading the charge. These are the people who speak in the media, very publicly, for FA/HAES. They're parading topless through train stations and insisting that society needs to change around them and that they're oppressed because they can't fit into Lululemon or they're told by doctors that they exceed the weight limit of an artificial knee.
    What about the comments from so many in this thread, who talked about needing to learn to accept themselves, even love themselves - in order to gain the confidence and motivation to seek improvement, to become healthier, to have the courage to exercise in public without fearing shame and judgement from people? Without worrying about walking down the aisle of an airplane toward a stranger who assumes they are going to be encroaching on their space the minute they sit down? Do you think these people are expressing "fit hate" or "fit shaming"?

    I think they're hopping onto a broken wagon because that's not what you're going to see if you step outside the bubble of this particular site and start looking at FA/HAES. There are labels that I refuse to apply to myself for similar reasons - that although what the movement is supposed to be applies to me, what it actually is does not.

    As far as your airplane example, yes, I am going to assume that someone who is too large to walk down the aisle without hitting the seats on both sides is going to encroach on another passenger's coach seat. After 9 years of full time travel and thousands of flights, experience has taught me that if someone is wider than the aisle they're wider than a coach seat. If someone wider than a coach seat sits in one that has a seat on either side of it, they are definitely encroaching on the seat belonging to someone else. I also don't think that it's wrong to not want a stranger's body in my seat and pressed up against me.
  • Alaplum
    Alaplum Posts: 169 Member
    edited May 2017
    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?
    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.

    I work with people who are disabled and many severely. Your fears are groundless. Discrimination happens all the time! Lawsuits are rare, accommodations have to be reasonable, (most cost under a hundred dollars) and if you can't do the job no court makes companies pay. It's the wild west out there, there are very real and very legitimate grievances around discrimination but the law is most certainly not available for most. Good luck taking companies to court.
  • heiliskrimsli
    heiliskrimsli Posts: 735 Member
    Bouddie wrote: »
    I work with people who are disabled and many severely. Your fears are groundless. Discrimination happens all the time! Lawsuits are rare, accommodations have to be reasonable, (most cost under a hundred dollars) and if you can't do the job no court makes companies pay. It's the wild west out there, there are very real and very legitimate grievances around discrimination but the law is most certainly not available for most. Good luck taking companies to court.

    Are they?

    Some plaintiffs have filed hundreds of lawsuits each. And some have put small businesses out of business.

    As for weight, the EEOC stepped in when a 5'2" 400lb woman was fired when her employers feared that she would not be able to perform CPR in the event of an emergency, and the State Supreme Court of Montana has ruled obesity in and of itself to be a disability, although the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed.

    Suing is easy, and the cost of defending against a lawsuit can be prohibitive. Your work with disabled people notwithstanding, this is a system that does get abused regularly already.
  • jenilla1
    jenilla1 Posts: 11,118 Member
    ...Movements tend to be defined by their leaders and / or loudest voices. The big problem with...activism these days is the militancy of the parts of them which gets the most airtime and in my opinion is a huge turn off for all but the true believers.

    This is the main reason so many people get turned off by religious and political movements, IMO. Being extremist and militant doesn't just turn people off, it actively fosters opposition and hostility. It seems to be the very opposite of what you should do to try and build support.

    But I guess that's how all extremists build their base. I guess they don't care if they alienate most people, if most people are pretty much apathetic anyway. Because as long as they can build support within a highly motivated group of pissed off people, that smaller group can get things done if the majority just sits there and lets them.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories