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.
Options
Replies
-
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 -
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.
It really depends on social circles, and there are differences in different groups as to how common obesity is. I was class one obese at 170 to 195, and definitely that was NOT the norm in my circles, and at 125 (about 22 BMI) I am pretty normal and many people are thinner than me. Now, I was not "taught to hate myself" based on it -- I started hating myself and my body when I was perfectly normal weight, as a pre teen and teen, and that had more to do with things other than weight (although of course I thought I was a whale, and granted I was a teen in the '80s). But the idea that thinness is not still an ideal does not jibe with my experience at all. When I was fat (and most of the time I was overweight or class one obese -- I popped into class 2 just briefly before I decided I had to take control again), I was super uncomfortable and self-conscious about it, always. I'd front it by making a joke or something so people wouldn't think I was unaware, I often wouldn't eat anything but super healthy low cal stuff in front of others (unless they were also heavier), I often felt like I was being judged or pitied for my weight (the latter being more unacceptable for me).
Now, I personally believe that a lot of this (not all) was in my head, and I don't think that anyone was to blame or was rude to me. But my experience is that it's definitely a ton (heh, no pun intended) easier and more comfortable to be normal weight. I would agree that lots and lots of people are just above normal, and so that I felt normal weight before actually being there -- I felt fine around 150. (Or BMI 26-27.) Note, that I felt okay there didn't mean I wanted to stay there, although my doctor said at that point that I was fine and didn't need to worry about it (when I said I intended to lose more and 120 was my goal she said that was fine and healthy too.)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.
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.2 -
so what.0
-
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.
Just because you're not happy doesn't mean other people can't be. I respect your opinion and you speaking your mind so don't get me wrong. I don't think you're shallow or a bully. You have a legitimate curiosity as to how some people can be heavy and happy when you can't be.
If some people are happy being heavy then that's their business, but when I was heavier I was in terrific health. Normal blood pressure, normal cholesterol, normal EKG's, blood work always came back great. Size and health aren't always related. You can be thin, workout all the time, and still have health problems that most would believe only happen to those with weight issues.
I give credit to those that can truly love themselves no matter what size they are. It is so rare in today's world that people are actually accepting of themselves for one reason or another that to be able to find that peace with oneself is admirable to me.9 -
Meh...I have been 400 pounds and am currently 280. My ldl: hdl is "optimal" putting me at significantly reduced risk....my fasting glucose is 70... BP is 105/70.....resting heart rate is 54.... Liver enzymes are low... Other than my thyroid pannel, all my numbers are perfect. I have very little visceral fat... Even though I have all perfect lab results, I recognize that obesity is not healthy and that it is better not to be obese BUT I refuse to be shamed into losing weight for social acceptance. Because I accept my body, I am not shy about working out in order to maintain cardiovascular health. Because I accept my body, I am more concerned with eating with the purpose of controlling my thyroid and FEELING good rather than fitting in a smaller size. Yes, ideally I will lose some weight by sticking to my eating plan, but health gain not weight loss is my primary goal. I dont "love being fat" but I refuse to believe I should be devalued due to carrying too much excess fat.11
-
Missjulesdid wrote: »Meh...I have been 400 pounds and am currently 280. My ldl: hdl is "optimal" putting me at significantly reduced risk....my fasting glucose is 70... BP is 105/70.....resting heart rate is 54.... Liver enzymes are low... Other than my thyroid panel, all my numbers are perfect. I have very little visceral fat... Even though I have all perfect lab results, I recognize that obesity is not healthy and that it is better not to be obese BUT I refuse to be shamed into losing weight for social acceptance. Because I accept my body, I am not shy about working out in order to maintain cardiovascular health. Because I accept my body, I am more concerned with eating with the purpose of controlling my thyroid and FEELING good rather than fitting in a smaller size. Yes, ideally I will lose some weight by sticking to my eating plan, but health gain not weight loss is my primary goal. I dont "love being fat" but I refuse to believe I should be devalued due to carrying too much excess fat.
I think this is a very healthy outlook. I don't think shaming is effective in any situation hence the words of wisdom "Praise in public, punish in private".
Regarding thyroid - as hormones are free cycling you may see this issue diminish as you lose weight. Simply put there's less tissue for the hormones to roam around.5 -
I had to be the one to love myself fat! Except myself plus size! I will have the same health issues when I hit goal as I do now. (Or even before the almost 44lb loss.) I had to be the one to find my worth. I was given the wrong information about nutrition when I was young and even into my mid 30s. I was shamed and bullied and hurt because I was 5'5" and wore a 10-12. I stopped dancing, playing softball, basketball, heck I stopped everything. (Even eating) After multiple bouts of having to take meds that made me gain massive amounts of weight I hated myself for "letting" it happen. I had no control over that. My thinking became even more distorted!
The only thing holding me back after that was my self hate talk!
My Mother gave up and hated herself for many reasons but her weight was a huge one! She didn't know how to love herself and couldn't hear how beautiful and amazing she was. She ate her self hatred to death Dec. 30, 2016
When you see someone who is big, do you know why? Do you know if there is a medical reason? Do you know anything about them? Like the meds I was on put the weight on but I blamed myself! That was stupid! I'm already awesome and now I'm able to love myself healthier!
The flip side is there are people that don't want that change nor want that healthy attitude. That is most unfortunate. I have had to cut a few of those out of my life. I deserve better than to hate myself! I found I loved myself at 282. I find I love myself at 239.4. I will love myself at 200 & I will love myself at 145or whenever I get to the lean healthy me I want. I'm even loving the wrinkly lose skin I'm finding everywhere! If it doesn't tighten up.....then I will love myself still!! I'm finding out things I love to do again and things I want to do like climbing (more like hiking) up mountains! I AM ENOUGH!12 -
misshoneyz2dab wrote: »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 it's more about accepting who you are. We women are horrible to ourselves and that needs to stop. The negative self talk needs to stop. Accepting yourself does not mean you cannot desire improvement.7 -
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.12 -
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.3
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions