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.
Fat Shaming Plates or Political Correctness Run Amok?
Replies
-
Please do not look at this if you're easily offended
https://touch.adverts.ie/healthcare/world-slimming-novelty-portion-control-weight-loss-diet-plate-watcher/14448468
OMG I WANT ONE lol
(p.s. I am in the morbidly obese category and am not offended by a damn plate)7 -
I'm not offended...but I'm a dude that can eat a lot of food and still lose weight or maintain weight. I do find it in poor taste though, and even as a joke, can perpetuate the myth that women have to eat like a tiny little bird to lose or maintain weight.8
-
deannalfisher wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »i think i would have less issues if it were equally marketed towards men as women, but it wasn't and there is where i have issue with - its potentially exploiting a vulnerabilty that many women have about body image to make a buck (FWIW - i eat about the same amount as mom jeans but def. don't need them)
It's part of a collection with the same design. There was another plate in the collection that had something about men in it.
then i have less issue with it - i still like the idea of my dad bod beer mug though
Make that a coffee mug and I'll buy one
I do think people are being too sensitive, but I also like the idea of the rings on the plate for portion control.
Some days I feel like I can't say "Good Morning" without being told what an insensitive jerk I am. Point being that cries of offense and indignation lose meaning after hearing 2-3 stories a day for years about yet another someone offended by something.
There's plenty to be pissed off about these days what ever a bodies world view is. This is just doesn't seem that important to me.5 -
Life's too short to hate plates.10
-
It's not worth getting our collective panties in a bunch and demanding Macy's take them down. But it's also just not funny. It doesn't make sense. Since when were Mom Jeans related to how big your jeans are anyways? I always thought Mom Jeans was related to a particular style regardless of size. Skinny Jeans, Favourite jeans, and Leggings would have made more sense. And to me it would be a gauge of how full you will be. Not how fat you are.
If Macy's hadn't catered to the squeaky wheels of the internet, they would have sat in stores until they went zero value (what happens when no one buys the clearance stuff) and got sent back anyways.
Is it fat shaming? Only if you are looking to get offended I think. I feel like this nation could benefit from a healthy dose of ignore and move on with a lot of things. Most of this stuff isn't worth blasting others on the internet for.
ETA: What I picture as "mom jeans". I've never heard it referenced to how fat one is.
7 -
I happened to see the first few tweets that started the recall effort. They did not mention the mom jeans portion size and had nothing to do with fat shaming. They were concerned with the skinny jeans portion size and how it could trigger or exacerbate eating disorders in young people. I'm just meh on the whole recall thing. These plates are meant to be silly and not taken seriously but I can also see how someone with a disorder could have trouble with it.11
-
Please do not look at this if you're easily offended
https://touch.adverts.ie/healthcare/world-slimming-novelty-portion-control-weight-loss-diet-plate-watcher/14448468
This one I like.0 -
LJGettinSexy wrote: »Mom jeans come in all sizes and fit differently than skinny jeans, which comes in all sizes too, so this was an EPIC fail at humor and anything else.
This.
Also, the current fashion trend of "mom jeans" are the 80s/90s style jeans with very high yet small waists and look best on hip young ladies in their teens and twenties...I see them all the time wearing vintage Chic, Jordache, etc. It's a thing. That's what "mom jeans" actually means in our current culture, and not some kind of unappealing, wide, elastic waist situation, which is what they seem to be indicating.
Awkward at best.2 -
I see exactly nothing wrong nor offensive about it. At worst, it's over simplified/generalized, but to me it's no different than the idea of using smaller plates to help control your portions while putting up a post-it note on the fridge with as a reminder of your goals.
Looking at it a bit tongue-in-cheek, it gets a chuckle from me.6 -
I'm not sure how this would be related to protected speech (in the US). The US government isn't saying, "you can't say this", rather Macy's pulled the item(s). I also highly doubt that the plates would fall under hate speech (which is protected in the First Amendment regardless).Motorsheen wrote: »There are many great evils in the world; this ain't one of them.
That being said, they (Macy's or whomever it was) should be allowed to sell them if they like.
'Bad Taste' should also be protected speech.
Yeah, that's true. After I typed the post, I thought: This probably doesn't fall under Government protected free speech. ( I just got busy and didn't take the time to edit the post.)
As a liberal, I suppose that I am just a little paranoid about our liberties being eroded from any angle.
1 -
It's not fat shaming, but it's not helpful, may be harmful to those already suffering disorders, and isn't even slightly funny.
I challenge even one person who said its "just a joke" to honestly say they even smiled at these things.
I also challenge stores to try harder.
As a joke, it was pretty lame.
Although, there's no accounting for what others might find entertaining.
Case in point: Check out network television programming.
It's Macy's choice to carry this item (or not), as comically vapid as it might be.5 -
To be fair, you wouldn't think wbc's shenanigans ought to fall under protected speech either, but the courts ruled they do.Motorsheen wrote: »
I'm not sure how this would be related to protected speech (in the US). The US government isn't saying, "you can't say this", rather Macy's pulled the item(s). I also highly doubt that the plates would fall under hate speech (which is protected in the First Amendment regardless).Motorsheen wrote: »There are many great evils in the world; this ain't one of them.
That being said, they (Macy's or whomever it was) should be allowed to sell them if they like.
'Bad Taste' should also be protected speech.
Yeah, that's true. After I typed the post, I thought: This probably doesn't fall under Government protected free speech. ( I just got busy and didn't take the time to edit the post.)
As a liberal, I suppose that I am just a little paranoid about our liberties being eroded from any angle.
0 -
To be fair, you wouldn't think wbc's shenanigans ought to fall under protected speech either, but the courts ruled they do.Motorsheen wrote: »
I'm not sure how this would be related to protected speech (in the US). The US government isn't saying, "you can't say this", rather Macy's pulled the item(s). I also highly doubt that the plates would fall under hate speech (which is protected in the First Amendment regardless).Motorsheen wrote: »There are many great evils in the world; this ain't one of them.
That being said, they (Macy's or whomever it was) should be allowed to sell them if they like.
'Bad Taste' should also be protected speech.
Yeah, that's true. After I typed the post, I thought: This probably doesn't fall under Government protected free speech. ( I just got busy and didn't take the time to edit the post.)
As a liberal, I suppose that I am just a little paranoid about our liberties being eroded from any angle.
@Phirrgus
I loathe WBC, Loathe.
However, as vile as it is, it should be protected.
.... slippery slopes2 -
Motorsheen wrote: »
I'm not sure how this would be related to protected speech (in the US). The US government isn't saying, "you can't say this", rather Macy's pulled the item(s). I also highly doubt that the plates would fall under hate speech (which is protected in the First Amendment regardless).Motorsheen wrote: »There are many great evils in the world; this ain't one of them.
That being said, they (Macy's or whomever it was) should be allowed to sell them if they like.
'Bad Taste' should also be protected speech.
Yeah, that's true. After I typed the post, I thought: This probably doesn't fall under Government protected free speech. ( I just got busy and didn't take the time to edit the post.)
As a liberal, I suppose that I am just a little paranoid about our liberties being eroded from any angle.
The thing about free speech is that it applies to all parties. That means while it applies to Macy's ability to sell this plate, it also applies to people's right to complain to them about the plate. Free speech doesn't guarantee this plate a right that Macy's had to sell it, and they ultimately have the right to decide whether or not they want to continue selling it. They probably looked at this plate and decided pretty quickly that it wasn't exactly a on fire selling item that was worth dealing with any backlash.7 -
Motorsheen wrote: »
To be fair, you wouldn't think wbc's shenanigans ought to fall under protected speech either, but the courts ruled they do.Motorsheen wrote: »
I'm not sure how this would be related to protected speech (in the US). The US government isn't saying, "you can't say this", rather Macy's pulled the item(s). I also highly doubt that the plates would fall under hate speech (which is protected in the First Amendment regardless).Motorsheen wrote: »There are many great evils in the world; this ain't one of them.
That being said, they (Macy's or whomever it was) should be allowed to sell them if they like.
'Bad Taste' should also be protected speech.
Yeah, that's true. After I typed the post, I thought: This probably doesn't fall under Government protected free speech. ( I just got busy and didn't take the time to edit the post.)
As a liberal, I suppose that I am just a little paranoid about our liberties being eroded from any angle.
@Phirrgus
I loathe WBC, Loathe.
However, as vile as it is, it should be protected.
.... slippery slopes
@Motorsheen oh man I can't even begin to tell you just what I think of them, can't even lol. Suffice to say we're in mucho agreement.
My point was that, it seems moving forward from approximately that point in time I believe we will see the lines blurred further on what is, or is not considered free speech, up to and including what should probably inconsequential events such as this.
Just my $0.02 is all.0 -
Motorsheen wrote: »
I'm not sure how this would be related to protected speech (in the US). The US government isn't saying, "you can't say this", rather Macy's pulled the item(s). I also highly doubt that the plates would fall under hate speech (which is protected in the First Amendment regardless).Motorsheen wrote: »There are many great evils in the world; this ain't one of them.
That being said, they (Macy's or whomever it was) should be allowed to sell them if they like.
'Bad Taste' should also be protected speech.
Yeah, that's true. After I typed the post, I thought: This probably doesn't fall under Government protected free speech. ( I just got busy and didn't take the time to edit the post.)
As a liberal, I suppose that I am just a little paranoid about our liberties being eroded from any angle.
The thing about free speech is that it applies to all parties. That means while it applies to Macy's ability to sell this plate, it also applies to people's right to complain to them about the plate. Free speech doesn't guarantee this plate a right that Macy's had to sell it, and they ultimately have the right to decide whether or not they want to continue selling it. They probably looked at this plate and decided pretty quickly that it wasn't exactly a on fire selling item that was worth dealing with any backlash.
@MikePTY
That's exactly right. Thankfully so.
I have no idea about about Macy's exact motivations, but your thoughts make complete sense.0 -
Motorsheen wrote: »
To be fair, you wouldn't think wbc's shenanigans ought to fall under protected speech either, but the courts ruled they do.Motorsheen wrote: »
I'm not sure how this would be related to protected speech (in the US). The US government isn't saying, "you can't say this", rather Macy's pulled the item(s). I also highly doubt that the plates would fall under hate speech (which is protected in the First Amendment regardless).Motorsheen wrote: »There are many great evils in the world; this ain't one of them.
That being said, they (Macy's or whomever it was) should be allowed to sell them if they like.
'Bad Taste' should also be protected speech.
Yeah, that's true. After I typed the post, I thought: This probably doesn't fall under Government protected free speech. ( I just got busy and didn't take the time to edit the post.)
As a liberal, I suppose that I am just a little paranoid about our liberties being eroded from any angle.
@Phirrgus
I loathe WBC, Loathe.
However, as vile as it is, it should be protected.
.... slippery slopes
@Motorsheen oh man I can't even begin to tell you just what I think of them, can't even lol. Suffice to say we're in mucho agreement.
My point was that, it seems moving forward from approximately that point in time I believe we will see the lines blurred further on what is, or is not considered free speech, up to and including what should probably inconsequential events such as this.
Just my $0.02 is all.
WBC is fringe with motivations that evidently go beyond political.
There will always be fringe groups on every side of the spectrum.
imho - they are evil & evil doesn't always hide in the shadows. Let them be seen and heard for what they are.
1 -
Motorsheen wrote: »
...It's not fat shaming, but it's not helpful, may be harmful to those already suffering disorders, and isn't even slightly funny.
I challenge even one person who said its "just a joke" to honestly say they even smiled at these things.
I also challenge stores to try harder.
It's Macy's choice to carry this item (or not), as comically vapid as it might be.
Yes, I keep seeing this. It's "their choice" or it "should be their choice."
It is. But also, choice goes both ways. If they get to choose to carry these things, other people get to choose to publicly criticize them for it, and both sides are not immune to the consequences of their choices. Macy's consequence may be loss of business. Critics' consequence may be having people mock them.
This is how choice works. I don't understand why it's so hard to comprehend for so many people. And (soapbox, not directed at anyone) seriously, everyone shut the eff up about how easily offended people are. I don't have to be offended by something to think it's a bad idea. Stop dismissing legitimate comments because "lol offended." You really prefer we all just shut up and laugh because we were told to like a bunch of friggin brainwashed idiots? Stop shutting your damn brains off and LISTEN. And if you don't agree in the end, at least have the decency to not be a donkey about it.19 -
Motorsheen wrote: »
...It's not fat shaming, but it's not helpful, may be harmful to those already suffering disorders, and isn't even slightly funny.
I challenge even one person who said its "just a joke" to honestly say they even smiled at these things.
I also challenge stores to try harder.
It's Macy's choice to carry this item (or not), as comically vapid as it might be.
Yes, I keep seeing this. It's "their choice" or it "should be their choice."
It is. But also, choice goes both ways. If they get to choose to carry these things, other people get to choose to publicly criticize them for it, and both sides are not immune to the consequences of their choices. Macy's consequence may be loss of business. Critics' consequence may be having people mock them.
This is how choice works. I don't understand why it's so hard to comprehend for so many people. And (soapbox, not directed at anyone) seriously, everyone shut the eff up about how easily offended people are. I don't have to be offended by something to think it's a bad idea. Stop dismissing legitimate comments because "lol offended." You really prefer we all just shut up and laugh because we were told to like a bunch of friggin brainwashed idiots? Stop shutting your damn brains off and LISTEN. And if you don't agree in the end, at least have the decency to not be a donkey about it.
While I don't disagree, I'd rather see people simply move on than raise a fuss over something that, I think, is insignificant. If they don't think it's insignificant, then fine... but not everything can be significant, and some of those people are complaining for all the wrong reasons. It's a bit of a fine line, sure.5 -
Fill it with fruits and veggies and it's all skinny jeans... jmho8
-
Motorsheen wrote: »
@Phirrgus
I loathe WBC, Loathe.
However, as vile as it is, it should be protected.
.... slippery slopes
Might I ask what is WBC?0 -
Distasteful, yes. But I dont necessarily hate the premise. Most people, myself included, underestimate portion sizes3
-
never mind... I think I misinterpreted.
Carry on...0 -
bmeadows380 wrote: »Motorsheen wrote: »
@Phirrgus
I loathe WBC, Loathe.
However, as vile as it is, it should be protected.
.... slippery slopes
Might I ask what is WBC?
Westboro Baptist Church. They are essentially a large extended family living in Topeka, Kansas that, among other things, pickets the funerals of LGBTQ people, pickets the funerals of military veterans (who may or may not be LGBTQ), blamed 9/11 on gay people (through some interesting mental gymnastics), etc. There's more information about them on the Southern Poverty Law Center's website here.
They're also a very good example of how far one can push freedom of speech laws. The ACLU has written about them in relation to this a number of times, including in this blog post.2 -
Companies should market items they believe would appeal to their customer base. People who are offended can give them feedback to that effect. People who find the item appealing can give the company feedback by purchases and positive reviews. The vast majority who don't care one way or the other can ignore the whole thing.
I think the amount of scrutiny and pushback that occurs is directly related to how well companies know their target audience. Catalogs like Harriet Carter and Carol Wright carry items on every other page that even I find vulgar and offensive (and I'm very broad-minded) but I dont see much in the way of protests which tells me they're probably doing a good job gauging what would be funny or appealing to their specific customer base.
6 -
bmeadows380 wrote: »Motorsheen wrote: »
@Phirrgus
I loathe WBC, Loathe.
However, as vile as it is, it should be protected.
.... slippery slopes
Might I ask what is WBC?
Westboro Baptist Church. They are essentially a large extended family living in Topeka, Kansas that, among other things, pickets the funerals of LGBTQ people, pickets the funerals of military veterans (who may or may not be LGBTQ), blamed 9/11 on gay people (through some interesting mental gymnastics), etc. There's more information about them on the Southern Poverty Law Center's website here.
They're also a very good example of how far one can push freedom of speech laws. The ACLU has written about them in relation to this a number of times, including in this blog post.
Ah, I have heard of them. Gives Baptists a really bad name - especially cringeworthy for me because I"m a Baptist and they ain't even in the same city let alone the same ballpark in what Baptists in general believe!3 -
Yeah - they're awful. While I'm not Christian, I've never considered them to be representative of Baptists, even when I was far less religious than I am now.bmeadows380 wrote: »bmeadows380 wrote: »Motorsheen wrote: »
@Phirrgus
I loathe WBC, Loathe.
However, as vile as it is, it should be protected.
.... slippery slopes
Might I ask what is WBC?
Westboro Baptist Church. They are essentially a large extended family living in Topeka, Kansas that, among other things, pickets the funerals of LGBTQ people, pickets the funerals of military veterans (who may or may not be LGBTQ), blamed 9/11 on gay people (through some interesting mental gymnastics), etc. There's more information about them on the Southern Poverty Law Center's website here.
They're also a very good example of how far one can push freedom of speech laws. The ACLU has written about them in relation to this a number of times, including in this blog post.
Ah, I have heard of them. Gives Baptists a really bad name - especially cringeworthy for me because I"m a Baptist and they ain't even in the same city let alone the same ballpark in what Baptists in general believe!1 -
Boba_14626 wrote: »Here's a novel idea: If you don't like something, don't buy it, don't listen to it, don't watch it.
And: if other people are offended by something, don't let that bother you.4 -
deannalfisher wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »i think i would have less issues if it were equally marketed towards men as women, but it wasn't and there is where i have issue with - its potentially exploiting a vulnerabilty that many women have about body image to make a buck (FWIW - i eat about the same amount as mom jeans but def. don't need them)
It's part of a collection with the same design. There was another plate in the collection that had something about men in it.
then i have less issue with it - i still like the idea of my dad bod beer mug though
It's already out there:
1 -
bmeadows380 wrote: »bmeadows380 wrote: »Motorsheen wrote: »
@Phirrgus
I loathe WBC, Loathe.
However, as vile as it is, it should be protected.
.... slippery slopes
Might I ask what is WBC?
Westboro Baptist Church. They are essentially a large extended family living in Topeka, Kansas that, among other things, pickets the funerals of LGBTQ people, pickets the funerals of military veterans (who may or may not be LGBTQ), blamed 9/11 on gay people (through some interesting mental gymnastics), etc. There's more information about them on the Southern Poverty Law Center's website here.
They're also a very good example of how far one can push freedom of speech laws. The ACLU has written about them in relation to this a number of times, including in this blog post.
Ah, I have heard of them. Gives Baptists a really bad name - especially cringeworthy for me because I"m a Baptist and they ain't even in the same city let alone the same ballpark in what Baptists in general believe!
Fortunately, I think most people realize that. I'm not Baptist, but due to geography I know many, many people who are...and while I don't agree with them on a lot of things, they are on the whole much much more accepting, kind, good folks than WBC!2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions