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.
Thoughts on the “glamourizing/normalizing” obesity vs body positivity conversations
Replies
-
I've stayed out of this thread but, did anyone see Late late show with James Corden tonight?
He, as a person who is overweight, talked quite passionately about fat shaming.
Of course this is not a research project, or study, just one man putting out on TV his interpretation of the down side of fat shaming.
Cheers, h.
ETA: Slightly off topic as body positive and fat shaming are not the same thing, but the thread has travelled.9 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »I don't think it's a moral and upstanding thing to make obese people feel bad about themselves. The idea that making people uncomfortable will improve their lives in the long run ... like fat shaming makes you a superhero ... it's pretty sanctimonious.
Other people's choices are their business and responsibility.
Will you be saying that when/if we have socialized healthcare in the US and you have to pay (even to a greater extent than you do now) for other people's bad choices?
How is this even a question? Does money give you a right to lord things over people? Auto insurance isn't socialized but it's pooled, everyone who has the same insurer as you can affect your rates with big claims, do you lecture strangers for speeding? No, because it's not about the money (that's an excuse) it's about the fat people.
And people who drive illegally without auto insurance also affect your rates, as insurers have to build into your premiums the costs of paying off if an uninsured driver is at fault in an accident with you.
And the bit from the earlier poster about socialized medicine and obesity is a red herring. The rest of U.S. society pays now for uninsured individuals who need critical care in emergency rooms (and the fact that the system doesn't generally do a good job of paying for preventative care or chronic issues just means they're all the more likely to end up needing expensive care in an emergency).6 -
This content has been removed.
-
amusedmonkey wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »I don't think it's a moral and upstanding thing to make obese people feel bad about themselves. The idea that making people uncomfortable will improve their lives in the long run ... like fat shaming makes you a superhero ... it's pretty sanctimonious.
Other people's choices are their business and responsibility.
Will you be saying that when/if we have socialized healthcare in the US and you have to pay (even to a greater extent than you do now) for other people's bad choices?
How is this even a question? Does money give you a right to lord things over people? Auto insurance isn't socialized but it's pooled, everyone who has the same insurer as you can affect your rates with big claims, do you lecture strangers for speeding? No, because it's not about the money (that's an excuse) it's about the fat people.
But as someone who hasn't had any accidents and just a couple speeding tickets in 40+ years of driving, my rates are considerably lower than someone with multiple accidents and reckless driving tickets. So even though the risk is pooled, the person causing the increased cost pays more.
Doesn't a person with a higher BMI pay more as well?
Not so much in the U.S. right now, where most people who are lucky enough to have insurance get it through a group policy from their workplace. In my experience and second-hand knowledge of other people's experiences, it's currently rare to have to have even a cursory medical exam to get insurance through the workplace. in the U.S. And given how much individual insurance (outside of a group plan, which is far more likely to require some kind of medical exam, or at least attestation on certain health issues, which could lead to a denial of coverage if you lie about anything, including your height and weight) costs even for someone in good health, I can't imagine there are many people with an obese BMI getting their insurance that way. You would have to be obese and wealthy.1 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »I don't think it's a moral and upstanding thing to make obese people feel bad about themselves. The idea that making people uncomfortable will improve their lives in the long run ... like fat shaming makes you a superhero ... it's pretty sanctimonious.
Other people's choices are their business and responsibility.
Will you be saying that when/if we have socialized healthcare in the US and you have to pay (even to a greater extent than you do now) for other people's bad choices?
How is this even a question? Does money give you a right to lord things over people? Auto insurance isn't socialized but it's pooled, everyone who has the same insurer as you can affect your rates with big claims, do you lecture strangers for speeding? No, because it's not about the money (that's an excuse) it's about the fat people.
But as someone who hasn't had any accidents and just a couple speeding tickets in 40+ years of driving, my rates are considerably lower than someone with multiple accidents and reckless driving tickets. So even though the risk is pooled, the person causing the increased cost pays more.
Doesn't a person with a higher BMI pay more as well?
Not so much in the U.S. right now, where most people who are lucky enough to have insurance get it through a group policy from their workplace. In my experience and second-hand knowledge of other people's experiences, it's currently rare to have to have even a cursory medical exam to get insurance through the workplace. in the U.S. And given how much individual insurance (outside of a group plan, which is far more likely to require some kind of medical exam, or at least attestation on certain health issues, which could lead to a denial of coverage if you lie about anything, including your height and weight) costs even for someone in good health, I can't imagine there are many people with an obese BMI getting their insurance that way. You would have to be obese and wealthy.
I know we are getting off track here, but individual insurance in the US does not require any sort of medical exam or information. You can get it through the internet in minutes. They can't charge you more based on your health. The only thing they base your rate on is your age and if you are a smoker.
As far as "expensive", well that depends on the eye of the beholder. It is subsidized for people of lower incomes so it is actually quite cheap for many people who get it. Full price for older individuals it can certainly be expensive. Its not necessarily any more expensive than employer based care without subsidy but employers usually subsidize about 2/3rds of it as a "benefit" (although really it depresses your overall compensation).
The truth is a large portion of Americans already recieve government (or socialized) medicine. Almost as many as are on employer based plans. Between Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and the VA, we'll over 100 million people are covered.2 -
middlehaitch wrote: »I've stayed out of this thread but, did anyone see Late late show with James Corden tonight?
He, as a person who is overweight, talked quite passionately about fat shaming.
Of course this is not a research project, or study, just one man putting out on TV his interpretation of the down side of fat shaming.
Cheers, h.
ETA: Slightly off topic as body positive and fat shaming are not the same thing, but the thread has travelled.
Thanks. I just found it on YouTube. I think the point that if fat shaming worked, there would be no obese children (and he would have a six-pack) was a good one.7 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »I don't think it's a moral and upstanding thing to make obese people feel bad about themselves. The idea that making people uncomfortable will improve their lives in the long run ... like fat shaming makes you a superhero ... it's pretty sanctimonious.
Other people's choices are their business and responsibility.
Will you be saying that when/if we have socialized healthcare in the US and you have to pay (even to a greater extent than you do now) for other people's bad choices?
How is this even a question? Does money give you a right to lord things over people? Auto insurance isn't socialized but it's pooled, everyone who has the same insurer as you can affect your rates with big claims, do you lecture strangers for speeding? No, because it's not about the money (that's an excuse) it's about the fat people.
But as someone who hasn't had any accidents and just a couple speeding tickets in 40+ years of driving, my rates are considerably lower than someone with multiple accidents and reckless driving tickets. So even though the risk is pooled, the person causing the increased cost pays more.
Doesn't a person with a higher BMI pay more as well?
Not so much in the U.S. right now, where most people who are lucky enough to have insurance get it through a group policy from their workplace. In my experience and second-hand knowledge of other people's experiences, it's currently rare to have to have even a cursory medical exam to get insurance through the workplace. in the U.S. And given how much individual insurance (outside of a group plan, which is far more likely to require some kind of medical exam, or at least attestation on certain health issues, which could lead to a denial of coverage if you lie about anything, including your height and weight) costs even for someone in good health, I can't imagine there are many people with an obese BMI getting their insurance that way. You would have to be obese and wealthy.
I know we are getting off track here, but individual insurance in the US does not require any sort of medical exam or information. You can get it through the internet in minutes. They can't charge you more based on your health. The only thing they base your rate on is your age and if you are a smoker.
As far as "expensive", well that depends on the eye of the beholder. It is subsidized for people of lower incomes so it is actually quite cheap for many people who get it. Full price for older individuals it can certainly be expensive. Its not necessarily any more expensive than employer based care without subsidy but employers usually subsidize about 2/3rds of it as a "benefit" (although really it depresses your overall compensation).
The truth is a large portion of Americans already recieve government (or socialized) medicine. Almost as many as are on employer based plans. Between Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and the VA, we'll over 100 million people are covered.
Are you talking about getting it through the ACA pools? I guess I was more thinking about what it was like in my 20s when I was fresh out of college and my first job didn't offer healthcare, and it sure seemed pricey to me, despite being a health 20-something who didn't smoke and had no pre-existing conditions.
But surely there is still private, individual insurance? Ten Democrats who want to be the next president just spent what seemed like 20 minutes arguing about whether Medicare for All should abolish private insurance, including the prohibition on denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. T
his affordable individual insurance without a medical exam purchased on the Internet that you're talking about has been around for about five years, and if the current president and his party have their way, it will just be a blip in the timeline of medical insurance in the U.S.
1 -
middlehaitch wrote: »I've stayed out of this thread but, did anyone see Late late show with James Corden tonight?
He, as a person who is overweight, talked quite passionately about fat shaming.
Of course this is not a research project, or study, just one man putting out on TV his interpretation of the down side of fat shaming.
Cheers, h.
ETA: Slightly off topic as body positive and fat shaming are not the same thing, but the thread has travelled.
I thought this was truly wonderful. And very on topic. It almost feels as if it was written in direct response to a number of posts on here. Here is the link for those interested:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ax1U04c4gaw
It also does not surprise me at all in the slightest that Bill Maher is pro-fat shaming. Because while he is intelligent and sometimes insightful, he is also a jerk and an incessant bully. Watch the video and see him make his arguments and James make his arguments, and really tell me if you would honestly think Bill Maher's are made in good faith attempts to help obese people. I don't think so.10 -
middlehaitch wrote: »I've stayed out of this thread but, did anyone see Late late show with James Corden tonight?
He, as a person who is overweight, talked quite passionately about fat shaming.
Of course this is not a research project, or study, just one man putting out on TV his interpretation of the down side of fat shaming.
Cheers, h.
ETA: Slightly off topic as body positive and fat shaming are not the same thing, but the thread has travelled.
I thought this was truly wonderful. And very on topic. It almost feels as if it was written in direct response to a number of posts on here. Here is the link for those interested:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ax1U04c4gaw
It also does not surprise me at all in the slightest that Bill Maher is pro-fat shaming. Because while he is intelligent and sometimes insightful, he is also a jerk and an incessant bully. Watch the video and see him make his arguments and James make his arguments, and really tell me if you would honestly think Bill Maher's are made in good faith attempts to help obese people. I don't think so.
Let us discard any remaining disagreement (or misunderstanding on my part) over how individual private health insurance works in the U.S. and join together in peace and concord on the fact that Bill Maher is a jerk and incessant bully. :
13 -
Corden's response was perfect, but it won't make a dent in Maher's idiocy. For what it's worth Maher has been shooting off at the mouth about and at obese folks for years. Anyone remember his shots at Christie? Something to the effect of "Gov Fat Fatty". Poking at Maher's insensitivity is like complaining about a certain potus being rude. Really? Ya just now figuring that out?
1 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »I don't think it's a moral and upstanding thing to make obese people feel bad about themselves. The idea that making people uncomfortable will improve their lives in the long run ... like fat shaming makes you a superhero ... it's pretty sanctimonious.
Other people's choices are their business and responsibility.
Will you be saying that when/if we have socialized healthcare in the US and you have to pay (even to a greater extent than you do now) for other people's bad choices?
How is this even a question? Does money give you a right to lord things over people? Auto insurance isn't socialized but it's pooled, everyone who has the same insurer as you can affect your rates with big claims, do you lecture strangers for speeding? No, because it's not about the money (that's an excuse) it's about the fat people.
But as someone who hasn't had any accidents and just a couple speeding tickets in 40+ years of driving, my rates are considerably lower than someone with multiple accidents and reckless driving tickets. So even though the risk is pooled, the person causing the increased cost pays more.
Doesn't a person with a higher BMI pay more as well?
Not so much in the U.S. right now, where most people who are lucky enough to have insurance get it through a group policy from their workplace. In my experience and second-hand knowledge of other people's experiences, it's currently rare to have to have even a cursory medical exam to get insurance through the workplace. in the U.S. And given how much individual insurance (outside of a group plan, which is far more likely to require some kind of medical exam, or at least attestation on certain health issues, which could lead to a denial of coverage if you lie about anything, including your height and weight) costs even for someone in good health, I can't imagine there are many people with an obese BMI getting their insurance that way. You would have to be obese and wealthy.
I know we are getting off track here, but individual insurance in the US does not require any sort of medical exam or information. You can get it through the internet in minutes. They can't charge you more based on your health. The only thing they base your rate on is your age and if you are a smoker.
As far as "expensive", well that depends on the eye of the beholder. It is subsidized for people of lower incomes so it is actually quite cheap for many people who get it. Full price for older individuals it can certainly be expensive. Its not necessarily any more expensive than employer based care without subsidy but employers usually subsidize about 2/3rds of it as a "benefit" (although really it depresses your overall compensation).
The truth is a large portion of Americans already recieve government (or socialized) medicine. Almost as many as are on employer based plans. Between Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and the VA, we'll over 100 million people are covered.
Are you talking about getting it through the ACA pools? I guess I was more thinking about what it was like in my 20s when I was fresh out of college and my first job didn't offer healthcare, and it sure seemed pricey to me, despite being a health 20-something who didn't smoke and had no pre-existing conditions.
My understanding is that under the ACA various new regulations were imposed on insurance companies, and those included no higher prices due to preexisting conditions, and that obesity counted as a preexisting condition. The exception to that is not with private insurance, but workplace insurance where wellness programs could be used. In the wellness program there has to be an alternative to BMI to meet the wellness targets and get the lower rate (like other health markers, exercise programs, etc.).
But given that everything keeps changing, I do not believe this is currently the law re private insurers, but that the Rs have removed a lot of the ACA regulations.But surely there is still private, individual insurance? Ten Democrats who want to be the next president just spent what seemed like 20 minutes arguing about whether Medicare for All should abolish private insurance, including the prohibition on denying coverage for pre-existing conditions.
All private insurance is regulated as to what they can charge more for, so the surcharge for obesity issue is not really an issue of private insurance or not in that all the Dems would support at minimum the ACA regs.This affordable individual insurance without a medical exam purchased on the Internet that you're talking about has been around for about five years, and if the current president and his party have their way, it will just be a blip in the timeline of medical insurance in the U.S.
Yes, true.
Re wellness programs, I thought this was an interesting piece: https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterubel/2016/02/25/is-your-company-using-health-insurance-premiums-to-stigmatize-fat-employees/#3c454ac959e61 -
I don’t have the insurance offered at my job as my primary insurance, but I am in a position that requires me to help organize the wellness screenings that are required for those who do.
Anyway, for this particular insurance, the higher premium is not based on the results of the wellness screening. It is based on if you actually do the wellness screenings (or go to your regular doctor to do the screening if you prefer). If you fail to meet any of the parameters of the screening, you have to do the health coaching/counseling session which can be done online or over the phone. However, you can fail the same aspect of the screening repeatedly with no consequence so long as you do the coaching/counseling every time. If you don’t do the screening at all within the given time frame, you pay a higher premium each month until you do it.
That said, back to topic, fat shaming or body shaming of any kind is NOT ok, and it’s rarely to never helpful. BUT to the thought that providing bigger seating is the responsibility of businesses, I don’t necessarily see the too small plane seats with the airlines requiring larger people to buy two seats and restaurant with less roomy booths/chairs as intentionally denying fat people of anything. I also have a hard time believing that any business that is trying to make money would intentionally go out of their way to shame their potential costumers or purposely make it so that a costumer couldn’t spend their money there. That’s all about the bottom line and businesses are out to make a profit/pay their own bills and take care of their own families. If they thought having fewer but bigger chairs would make them more money despite being able to seat and serve fewer people, then that’s what they would do. If an airline had bigger seats at the same price, they’d have to sell fewer tickets = less revenue.
There was a discussion about restaurants accommodations as well as one about the plane seats a while back that was interesting.3 -
middlehaitch wrote: »I've stayed out of this thread but, did anyone see Late late show with James Corden tonight?
He, as a person who is overweight, talked quite passionately about fat shaming.
Of course this is not a research project, or study, just one man putting out on TV his interpretation of the down side of fat shaming.
Cheers, h.
ETA: Slightly off topic as body positive and fat shaming are not the same thing, but the thread has travelled.
I thought this was truly wonderful. And very on topic. It almost feels as if it was written in direct response to a number of posts on here. Here is the link for those interested:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ax1U04c4gaw
It also does not surprise me at all in the slightest that Bill Maher is pro-fat shaming. Because while he is intelligent and sometimes insightful, he is also a jerk and an incessant bully. Watch the video and see him make his arguments and James make his arguments, and really tell me if you would honestly think Bill Maher's are made in good faith attempts to help obese people. I don't think so.
Thank you for posting that. It almost brought me to tears...and had I not been at work (on break), I'm sure it would have. I've never watched James Corden's show, but that video has piqued my interst on who he is.4 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Marginalizing the obese doesn't help them become less obese.
Out of curiosity why would you think that it wouldn't decrease obesity rates to marginalize obesity? It certainly decreased the number of people who smoke when society marginalize smoking and made it inconvenient to be a smoker and if you are a smoker quitting isn't an easy fix and often takes years.
Just to be clear by "societal pressure" and "margalization" I don't mean being verbally abusive to overweight people, same as I don't mean that you should be verbally abusive to someone who smokes. That said I think having a bit of a mantra in society of how smoking or obesity are things to avoid and shun is a positive force overall, even if some people feel disadvantaged because of it.
There is also a big difference about having empathy for an individual and having just global societal acceptance of what could be argued is a negative trait. I think society should put pressure against obesity...doesn't mean I can't have empathy or understanding for an individual who is overweight. Not wanting society to accept obesity is not the same thing as promoting fat shaming.
How are you defining "marginalization" in this context? I suspect your definition isn't similar to the way the world marginalization is commonly used in areas like sociology, public health, and the social sciences more broadly. That is to say, the way you're using the word is likely different to the way that people who are doing research in fat studies are using the same word.
That is why I put it into quotes. Problem with these sorts of online debates is people read into what you are saying based on the words they choose for you. I started using marginalization only because other people said what I was talking about was marginalization.
All I mean is that society should actively discourage obesity in the same way we started actively discouraging smoking. Being obese should have some consequences within society. We shouldn't go out of our way to accommodate obesity. Trying to push for larger seats to accommodate people who are morbidly obese or acting like being obese is perfectly fine would be like having smoking sections in restaurants or programs on TV glorifying smoking. Wanting everyone to feel good about themselves is admirable of course but I think it can cause real damage to just act like obesity isn't a health issue. And yes, I do get that there is second-hand smoke but there isn't second-hand fat so the two aren't directly comparible, I still feel like the analogy does convey more the types of "marganilization" I am talking about . A society that has made it clear that that trait is something to be addressed and fixed by the individual rather than accepted.
What I do not mean is that I think its a good idea to mock individuals for their appearance.
Second hand smoke gives people cancer. Acting like other people's obesity is perfectly fine doesn't. A smoking section circulates the air through the restaurant.
The point of the analogy wasnt to equate the health risks of smoking and obesity...I acknowledge that they dont equate in exactly the way you are saying in the very post you are responding to if you keep reading past the part you highlighted to the part I highlighted.
The analogy is to the affect societal accommodation has on the proliferation of negative traits. Smoking was identified as a problem and the first response was to accommodate that by having separate areas for smokers which had no impact on smoking rates. This is at a time where everyone was already aware of the health risk. What really drove smoking rates down was the decision by society to no longer accommodate it.
I wasnt trying to act like you could get sick by being near overweight people come on man no reason to act like I was somehow claiming that. The analogy is more to say putting doublewide seats in all public transit vehicles to accommodate the morbidly obese.
I think the biggest problem with your position is that it has the implicit assumption that non-accommodation or other roadblocks will actually discourage obesity. Given some research shows that a person's feelings of fat-shaming are correlated with weight gain, I'm not sure that's a safe assumption - it seems the opposite might be true. Indeed, given the general understanding of the psychology of shame, it makes sense that it will stress, cause feelings of dehumanization, and overall reinforce the behaviors that promote obesity.
I would also ask, it seems you feel society has some kind of authority to influence people about behaviors/conditions that do not harm others. Do you have a principle of what separates which of these are acceptable? Would it be okay for society to be non-accommodative of say left-handedness? Sure, left-handedness is a fairly innate behavior, but it is possible to force them into right-handedness. Left-handedness even does negatively impact life expectancy.10 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Marginalizing the obese doesn't help them become less obese.
Out of curiosity why would you think that it wouldn't decrease obesity rates to marginalize obesity? It certainly decreased the number of people who smoke when society marginalize smoking and made it inconvenient to be a smoker and if you are a smoker quitting isn't an easy fix and often takes years.
Just to be clear by "societal pressure" and "margalization" I don't mean being verbally abusive to overweight people, same as I don't mean that you should be verbally abusive to someone who smokes. That said I think having a bit of a mantra in society of how smoking or obesity are things to avoid and shun is a positive force overall, even if some people feel disadvantaged because of it.
There is also a big difference about having empathy for an individual and having just global societal acceptance of what could be argued is a negative trait. I think society should put pressure against obesity...doesn't mean I can't have empathy or understanding for an individual who is overweight. Not wanting society to accept obesity is not the same thing as promoting fat shaming.
How are you defining "marginalization" in this context? I suspect your definition isn't similar to the way the world marginalization is commonly used in areas like sociology, public health, and the social sciences more broadly. That is to say, the way you're using the word is likely different to the way that people who are doing research in fat studies are using the same word.
That is why I put it into quotes. Problem with these sorts of online debates is people read into what you are saying based on the words they choose for you. I started using marginalization only because other people said what I was talking about was marginalization.
All I mean is that society should actively discourage obesity in the same way we started actively discouraging smoking. Being obese should have some consequences within society. We shouldn't go out of our way to accommodate obesity. Trying to push for larger seats to accommodate people who are morbidly obese or acting like being obese is perfectly fine would be like having smoking sections in restaurants or programs on TV glorifying smoking. Wanting everyone to feel good about themselves is admirable of course but I think it can cause real damage to just act like obesity isn't a health issue. And yes, I do get that there is second-hand smoke but there isn't second-hand fat so the two aren't directly comparible, I still feel like the analogy does convey more the types of "marganilization" I am talking about . A society that has made it clear that that trait is something to be addressed and fixed by the individual rather than accepted.
What I do not mean is that I think its a good idea to mock individuals for their appearance.
Second hand smoke gives people cancer. Acting like other people's obesity is perfectly fine doesn't. A smoking section circulates the air through the restaurant.
The point of the analogy wasnt to equate the health risks of smoking and obesity...I acknowledge that they dont equate in exactly the way you are saying in the very post you are responding to if you keep reading past the part you highlighted to the part I highlighted.
The analogy is to the affect societal accommodation has on the proliferation of negative traits. Smoking was identified as a problem and the first response was to accommodate that by having separate areas for smokers which had no impact on smoking rates. This is at a time where everyone was already aware of the health risk. What really drove smoking rates down was the decision by society to no longer accommodate it.
I wasnt trying to act like you could get sick by being near overweight people come on man no reason to act like I was somehow claiming that. The analogy is more to say putting doublewide seats in all public transit vehicles to accommodate the morbidly obese.
I think the biggest problem with your position is that it has the implicit assumption that non-accommodation or other roadblocks will actually discourage obesity. Given some research shows that a person's feelings of fat-shaming are correlated with weight gain, I'm not sure that's a safe assumption - it seems the opposite might be true. Indeed, given the general understanding of the psychology of shame, it makes sense that it will stress, cause feelings of dehumanization, and overall reinforce the behaviors that promote obesity.
I would also ask, it seems you feel society has some kind of authority to influence people about behaviors/conditions that do not harm others. Do you have a principle of what separates which of these are acceptable? Would it be okay for society to be non-accommodative of say left-handedness? Sure, left-handedness is a fairly innate behavior, but it is possible to force them into right-handedness. Left-handedness even does negatively impact life expectancy.
Off topic a bit, but it’s likely that left-handedness impacts life expectancy because there are basically two different ways of ending up left-handed - to simplify, either having a stronger left side (including brain connections, etc) than expected, or having a weaker right side than expected. Since the second type can be caused by any number of things causing minor developmental delays, some of which are associated with other bad health outcomes, it’s probably why overall, statistically, left-handers have a shorter life expectancy. Left handers also have a higher rate of being geniuses, if I remember correctly, presumably because of ones of the first type. It’s not that left-handedness causes mortality, it’s correlated with it, which means that stopping people from expressing their left-handedness wouldn’t prevent the mortality.
Obesity is different in that it apparently causes problems, and is not just correlated with them. There’s some disagreement about this (some scientists think both diabetes and obesity are caused by a third factor, for example), but the proof that it’s true is that lifestyle interventions do work. Obese people who lose weight are less likely to become diabetic or have heart problems.2 -
rheddmobile wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Marginalizing the obese doesn't help them become less obese.
Out of curiosity why would you think that it wouldn't decrease obesity rates to marginalize obesity? It certainly decreased the number of people who smoke when society marginalize smoking and made it inconvenient to be a smoker and if you are a smoker quitting isn't an easy fix and often takes years.
Just to be clear by "societal pressure" and "margalization" I don't mean being verbally abusive to overweight people, same as I don't mean that you should be verbally abusive to someone who smokes. That said I think having a bit of a mantra in society of how smoking or obesity are things to avoid and shun is a positive force overall, even if some people feel disadvantaged because of it.
There is also a big difference about having empathy for an individual and having just global societal acceptance of what could be argued is a negative trait. I think society should put pressure against obesity...doesn't mean I can't have empathy or understanding for an individual who is overweight. Not wanting society to accept obesity is not the same thing as promoting fat shaming.
How are you defining "marginalization" in this context? I suspect your definition isn't similar to the way the world marginalization is commonly used in areas like sociology, public health, and the social sciences more broadly. That is to say, the way you're using the word is likely different to the way that people who are doing research in fat studies are using the same word.
That is why I put it into quotes. Problem with these sorts of online debates is people read into what you are saying based on the words they choose for you. I started using marginalization only because other people said what I was talking about was marginalization.
All I mean is that society should actively discourage obesity in the same way we started actively discouraging smoking. Being obese should have some consequences within society. We shouldn't go out of our way to accommodate obesity. Trying to push for larger seats to accommodate people who are morbidly obese or acting like being obese is perfectly fine would be like having smoking sections in restaurants or programs on TV glorifying smoking. Wanting everyone to feel good about themselves is admirable of course but I think it can cause real damage to just act like obesity isn't a health issue. And yes, I do get that there is second-hand smoke but there isn't second-hand fat so the two aren't directly comparible, I still feel like the analogy does convey more the types of "marganilization" I am talking about . A society that has made it clear that that trait is something to be addressed and fixed by the individual rather than accepted.
What I do not mean is that I think its a good idea to mock individuals for their appearance.
Second hand smoke gives people cancer. Acting like other people's obesity is perfectly fine doesn't. A smoking section circulates the air through the restaurant.
The point of the analogy wasnt to equate the health risks of smoking and obesity...I acknowledge that they dont equate in exactly the way you are saying in the very post you are responding to if you keep reading past the part you highlighted to the part I highlighted.
The analogy is to the affect societal accommodation has on the proliferation of negative traits. Smoking was identified as a problem and the first response was to accommodate that by having separate areas for smokers which had no impact on smoking rates. This is at a time where everyone was already aware of the health risk. What really drove smoking rates down was the decision by society to no longer accommodate it.
I wasnt trying to act like you could get sick by being near overweight people come on man no reason to act like I was somehow claiming that. The analogy is more to say putting doublewide seats in all public transit vehicles to accommodate the morbidly obese.
I think the biggest problem with your position is that it has the implicit assumption that non-accommodation or other roadblocks will actually discourage obesity. Given some research shows that a person's feelings of fat-shaming are correlated with weight gain, I'm not sure that's a safe assumption - it seems the opposite might be true. Indeed, given the general understanding of the psychology of shame, it makes sense that it will stress, cause feelings of dehumanization, and overall reinforce the behaviors that promote obesity.
I would also ask, it seems you feel society has some kind of authority to influence people about behaviors/conditions that do not harm others. Do you have a principle of what separates which of these are acceptable? Would it be okay for society to be non-accommodative of say left-handedness? Sure, left-handedness is a fairly innate behavior, but it is possible to force them into right-handedness. Left-handedness even does negatively impact life expectancy.
Off topic a bit, but it’s likely that left-handedness impacts life expectancy because there are basically two different ways of ending up left-handed - to simplify, either having a stronger left side (including brain connections, etc) than expected, or having a weaker right side than expected. Since the second type can be caused by any number of things causing minor developmental delays, some of which are associated with other bad health outcomes, it’s probably why overall, statistically, left-handers have a shorter life expectancy. Left handers also have a higher rate of being geniuses, if I remember correctly, presumably because of ones of the first type. It’s not that left-handedness causes mortality, it’s correlated with it, which means that stopping people from expressing their left-handedness wouldn’t prevent the mortality.
Obesity is different in that it apparently causes problems, and is not just correlated with them. There’s some disagreement about this (some scientists think both diabetes and obesity are caused by a third factor, for example), but the proof that it’s true is that lifestyle interventions do work. Obese people who lose weight are less likely to become diabetic or have heart problems.
My understanding would be that left-handness increases accident risk because of the number of objects that are designed for being right-handed in day to day use - so that ironically, it is exactly the non-accommodation that causes the issue. In such a case, forcing someone to become used to right-handness should decrease accident risk, somewhat, but probably would not do so perfectly as a person trained to right-handness over naturally having it is probably less dexterous than the average right-handed by nature person using a right-hand.
I'd definitely say obesity is causative or exacerbative of numerous health conditions - I'm not trying to craft a perfect analogy, just posing a moral hypothetical. I had considered asking about if it would be okay to force depressed people to socialize as a society as another possible example, but I think because depression is considered a disease while left-handness is not, it might not trigger the same questions about the limits of morals, and merely produce "a yes, of course society should do something about depressed people too".
Frankly, I tend to have disdain for the fat acceptance people that try to push the idea that obesity is not causative of health issues - I think that for one it is immorally harming others with lies, and I think it comes from intellectual cowardice. It takes more rigor to defend a moral stance like nobody has a moral obligation to be healthy because there are whole subjective frameworks around it, but pretending something doesn't affect health via misleading information becomes a matter of just convincing people of a false objective "fact".
8 -
Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »Reconfiguring public areas to accommodate people who have eaten themselves out of regular-sized furniture is not helping them, it is removing a consequence of their unhealthy condition and taking away another incentive to address their condition, which enables them to continue down the road to an early death.I hate this argument. If there's one thing anyone on MFP knows, its that weight loss is painfully, agonizingly slow. And the 45 pounds I've dropped over these 5 long months have not changed my physical size/appearance hardly at all. I'm still wearing the same size pants.
So because I made some bad choices, received some bad advice, and/or suffered medical issues that caused massive weight gain before they were under control, I should be expunged from society for the 2 years its gonna take to drop it again? Do you want me to wear burlap sacks while I hide in my basement on the floor, unable to live my life or even sit in a chair?
Screw that. You don't care about me, you don't KNOW me. If I were to die tomorrow at age 31 you wouldn't care because we are strangers. So don't pretend like you care about my early death or that your "logic" comes from anywhere except a place of fat phobia and bullying.
Two years isn't that long. I have a neurological condition for which I didn't expect accommodations in society while I was learning to manage it. I did expect accommodations at work, and quit two jobs when that didn't happen.
Most of the time I had to accommodate myself. My life sure did take a strange turn.
It's been 20 years now, and as I look back the first few years were probably more difficult than I remember, but I got through them. While the situation stank at the time, I honestly wouldn't change the direction my life took.
My condition was 100% caused by my employer's negligence. I chose to not see myself as a victim, but to just persevere.11 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »Reconfiguring public areas to accommodate people who have eaten themselves out of regular-sized furniture is not helping them, it is removing a consequence of their unhealthy condition and taking away another incentive to address their condition, which enables them to continue down the road to an early death.I hate this argument. If there's one thing anyone on MFP knows, its that weight loss is painfully, agonizingly slow. And the 45 pounds I've dropped over these 5 long months have not changed my physical size/appearance hardly at all. I'm still wearing the same size pants.
So because I made some bad choices, received some bad advice, and/or suffered medical issues that caused massive weight gain before they were under control, I should be expunged from society for the 2 years its gonna take to drop it again? Do you want me to wear burlap sacks while I hide in my basement on the floor, unable to live my life or even sit in a chair?
Screw that. You don't care about me, you don't KNOW me. If I were to die tomorrow at age 31 you wouldn't care because we are strangers. So don't pretend like you care about my early death or that your "logic" comes from anywhere except a place of fat phobia and bullying.
Two years isn't that long. I have a neurological condition for which I didn't expect accommodations in society while I was learning to manage it. I did expect accommodations at work, and quit two jobs when that didn't happen.
Most of the time I had to accommodate myself. My life sure did take a strange turn.
It's been 20 years now, and as I look back the first few years were probably more difficult than I remember, but I got through them. While the situation stank at the time, I honestly wouldn't change the direction my life took.
My condition was 100% caused by my employer's negligence. I chose to not see myself as a victim, but to just persevere.
I have multiple psychological conditions which required reasonable accommodations from my university. I too didn't get them, and once I was able to advocate for myself, I a. got said accommodations and b. got a fair amount of money awarded to me by the university's office of diversity and inclusion. Outside of the principal of it all, I suspect they realized that they were looking at a lawsuit that they would have lost (public university in serious breach of the ADA).
That said, I would be kidding myself if I didn't view myself as a victim of the disability resource center's discrimination and their having not done their job. Being a victim does not mean that you're powerless to change or come back from the situation in a better place. It doesn't mean that you don't persevere.
I think a lot of people have decided that the word "victim" is synonymous with weak and it means you're letting people/systems/organizations roll over you. That idea allows for people in various roles to take comfort in the status quo.
If you don't want to think of yourself as a victim then so be it. I'm not going to try to make you or anyone else do so. But let's not assume that victims can't persevere, can't rise up, and can't make changes. Yes I'm a victim of discrimination (in all sorts of areas really), but that doesn't mean that I'm also not successful in multiple areas, including in education. It also doesn't mean that I don't have a lot of willpower.10 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Marginalizing the obese doesn't help them become less obese.
Out of curiosity why would you think that it wouldn't decrease obesity rates to marginalize obesity? It certainly decreased the number of people who smoke when society marginalize smoking and made it inconvenient to be a smoker and if you are a smoker quitting isn't an easy fix and often takes years.
Just to be clear by "societal pressure" and "margalization" I don't mean being verbally abusive to overweight people, same as I don't mean that you should be verbally abusive to someone who smokes. That said I think having a bit of a mantra in society of how smoking or obesity are things to avoid and shun is a positive force overall, even if some people feel disadvantaged because of it.
There is also a big difference about having empathy for an individual and having just global societal acceptance of what could be argued is a negative trait. I think society should put pressure against obesity...doesn't mean I can't have empathy or understanding for an individual who is overweight. Not wanting society to accept obesity is not the same thing as promoting fat shaming.
How are you defining "marginalization" in this context? I suspect your definition isn't similar to the way the world marginalization is commonly used in areas like sociology, public health, and the social sciences more broadly. That is to say, the way you're using the word is likely different to the way that people who are doing research in fat studies are using the same word.
That is why I put it into quotes. Problem with these sorts of online debates is people read into what you are saying based on the words they choose for you. I started using marginalization only because other people said what I was talking about was marginalization.
All I mean is that society should actively discourage obesity in the same way we started actively discouraging smoking. Being obese should have some consequences within society. We shouldn't go out of our way to accommodate obesity. Trying to push for larger seats to accommodate people who are morbidly obese or acting like being obese is perfectly fine would be like having smoking sections in restaurants or programs on TV glorifying smoking. Wanting everyone to feel good about themselves is admirable of course but I think it can cause real damage to just act like obesity isn't a health issue. And yes, I do get that there is second-hand smoke but there isn't second-hand fat so the two aren't directly comparible, I still feel like the analogy does convey more the types of "marganilization" I am talking about . A society that has made it clear that that trait is something to be addressed and fixed by the individual rather than accepted.
What I do not mean is that I think its a good idea to mock individuals for their appearance.
Second hand smoke gives people cancer. Acting like other people's obesity is perfectly fine doesn't. A smoking section circulates the air through the restaurant.
The point of the analogy wasnt to equate the health risks of smoking and obesity...I acknowledge that they dont equate in exactly the way you are saying in the very post you are responding to if you keep reading past the part you highlighted to the part I highlighted.
The analogy is to the affect societal accommodation has on the proliferation of negative traits. Smoking was identified as a problem and the first response was to accommodate that by having separate areas for smokers which had no impact on smoking rates. This is at a time where everyone was already aware of the health risk. What really drove smoking rates down was the decision by society to no longer accommodate it.
I wasnt trying to act like you could get sick by being near overweight people come on man no reason to act like I was somehow claiming that. The analogy is more to say putting doublewide seats in all public transit vehicles to accommodate the morbidly obese.
The reason people enacted laws against smoking in public wasn't to nudge people towards dropping the habit, it was to protect people from getting cancer from second hand smoke. You can make an argument that these laws had the effect of reducing smoking - at the same time cigarette taxes were making it a very expensive habit, it was starting to affect insurance premiums, demographics were shifting, and we were understanding even more how unhealthy it is - it's not just that people couldn't smoke in restaurants anymore so they gave smoking up.
Again I'm not trying to equate smoking to obesity in terms of health risks laws or risk to others. I'm responding to those saying that not accommodating something in society doesnt reduce its rates...how do you explain the precipitous drop in smoking rates right after we stopped accommodating smoking on transit and in restraunts etc especially since the health risks were already well known prior to those changes.
Is shame and blocking access to transit and restraunts to obese people acceptable? No...I dont think so for the reasons people have given that it's a trait not a behavior you can just stop. But I resist this idea that societal pressure and lack of acceptance has no effect...of course it has an effect.9 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »I don't think it's a moral and upstanding thing to make obese people feel bad about themselves. The idea that making people uncomfortable will improve their lives in the long run ... like fat shaming makes you a superhero ... it's pretty sanctimonious.
Other people's choices are their business and responsibility.
Will you be saying that when/if we have socialized healthcare in the US and you have to pay (even to a greater extent than you do now) for other people's bad choices?
How is this even a question? Does money give you a right to lord things over people? Auto insurance isn't socialized but it's pooled, everyone who has the same insurer as you can affect your rates with big claims, do you lecture strangers for speeding? No, because it's not about the money (that's an excuse) it's about the fat people.
But as someone who hasn't had any accidents and just a couple speeding tickets in 40+ years of driving, my rates are considerably lower than someone with multiple accidents and reckless driving tickets. So even though the risk is pooled, the person causing the increased cost pays more.
Doesn't a person with a higher BMI pay more as well?
Not so much in the U.S. right now, where most people who are lucky enough to have insurance get it through a group policy from their workplace. In my experience and second-hand knowledge of other people's experiences, it's currently rare to have to have even a cursory medical exam to get insurance through the workplace. in the U.S. And given how much individual insurance (outside of a group plan, which is far more likely to require some kind of medical exam, or at least attestation on certain health issues, which could lead to a denial of coverage if you lie about anything, including your height and weight) costs even for someone in good health, I can't imagine there are many people with an obese BMI getting their insurance that way. You would have to be obese and wealthy.
I know we are getting off track here, but individual insurance in the US does not require any sort of medical exam or information. You can get it through the internet in minutes. They can't charge you more based on your health. The only thing they base your rate on is your age and if you are a smoker.
As far as "expensive", well that depends on the eye of the beholder. It is subsidized for people of lower incomes so it is actually quite cheap for many people who get it. Full price for older individuals it can certainly be expensive. Its not necessarily any more expensive than employer based care without subsidy but employers usually subsidize about 2/3rds of it as a "benefit" (although really it depresses your overall compensation).
The truth is a large portion of Americans already recieve government (or socialized) medicine. Almost as many as are on employer based plans. Between Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and the VA, we'll over 100 million people are covered.
Are you talking about getting it through the ACA pools? I guess I was more thinking about what it was like in my 20s when I was fresh out of college and my first job didn't offer healthcare, and it sure seemed pricey to me, despite being a health 20-something who didn't smoke and had no pre-existing conditions.
My understanding is that under the ACA various new regulations were imposed on insurance companies, and those included no higher prices due to preexisting conditions, and that obesity counted as a preexisting condition. The exception to that is not with private insurance, but workplace insurance where wellness programs could be used. In the wellness program there has to be an alternative to BMI to meet the wellness targets and get the lower rate (like other health markers, exercise programs, etc.).
But given that everything keeps changing, I do not believe this is currently the law re private insurers, but that the Rs have removed a lot of the ACA regulations.But surely there is still private, individual insurance? Ten Democrats who want to be the next president just spent what seemed like 20 minutes arguing about whether Medicare for All should abolish private insurance, including the prohibition on denying coverage for pre-existing conditions.
All private insurance is regulated as to what they can charge more for, so the surcharge for obesity issue is not really an issue of private insurance or not in that all the Dems would support at minimum the ACA regs.This affordable individual insurance without a medical exam purchased on the Internet that you're talking about has been around for about five years, and if the current president and his party have their way, it will just be a blip in the timeline of medical insurance in the U.S.
Yes, true.
Re wellness programs, I thought this was an interesting piece: https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterubel/2016/02/25/is-your-company-using-health-insurance-premiums-to-stigmatize-fat-employees/#3c454ac959e6
Thanks for this.1 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Marginalizing the obese doesn't help them become less obese.
Out of curiosity why would you think that it wouldn't decrease obesity rates to marginalize obesity? It certainly decreased the number of people who smoke when society marginalize smoking and made it inconvenient to be a smoker and if you are a smoker quitting isn't an easy fix and often takes years.
Just to be clear by "societal pressure" and "margalization" I don't mean being verbally abusive to overweight people, same as I don't mean that you should be verbally abusive to someone who smokes. That said I think having a bit of a mantra in society of how smoking or obesity are things to avoid and shun is a positive force overall, even if some people feel disadvantaged because of it.
There is also a big difference about having empathy for an individual and having just global societal acceptance of what could be argued is a negative trait. I think society should put pressure against obesity...doesn't mean I can't have empathy or understanding for an individual who is overweight. Not wanting society to accept obesity is not the same thing as promoting fat shaming.
How are you defining "marginalization" in this context? I suspect your definition isn't similar to the way the world marginalization is commonly used in areas like sociology, public health, and the social sciences more broadly. That is to say, the way you're using the word is likely different to the way that people who are doing research in fat studies are using the same word.
That is why I put it into quotes. Problem with these sorts of online debates is people read into what you are saying based on the words they choose for you. I started using marginalization only because other people said what I was talking about was marginalization.
All I mean is that society should actively discourage obesity in the same way we started actively discouraging smoking. Being obese should have some consequences within society. We shouldn't go out of our way to accommodate obesity. Trying to push for larger seats to accommodate people who are morbidly obese or acting like being obese is perfectly fine would be like having smoking sections in restaurants or programs on TV glorifying smoking. Wanting everyone to feel good about themselves is admirable of course but I think it can cause real damage to just act like obesity isn't a health issue. And yes, I do get that there is second-hand smoke but there isn't second-hand fat so the two aren't directly comparible, I still feel like the analogy does convey more the types of "marganilization" I am talking about . A society that has made it clear that that trait is something to be addressed and fixed by the individual rather than accepted.
What I do not mean is that I think its a good idea to mock individuals for their appearance.
Second hand smoke gives people cancer. Acting like other people's obesity is perfectly fine doesn't. A smoking section circulates the air through the restaurant.
The point of the analogy wasnt to equate the health risks of smoking and obesity...I acknowledge that they dont equate in exactly the way you are saying in the very post you are responding to if you keep reading past the part you highlighted to the part I highlighted.
The analogy is to the affect societal accommodation has on the proliferation of negative traits. Smoking was identified as a problem and the first response was to accommodate that by having separate areas for smokers which had no impact on smoking rates. This is at a time where everyone was already aware of the health risk. What really drove smoking rates down was the decision by society to no longer accommodate it.
I wasnt trying to act like you could get sick by being near overweight people come on man no reason to act like I was somehow claiming that. The analogy is more to say putting doublewide seats in all public transit vehicles to accommodate the morbidly obese.
The reason people enacted laws against smoking in public wasn't to nudge people towards dropping the habit, it was to protect people from getting cancer from second hand smoke. You can make an argument that these laws had the effect of reducing smoking - at the same time cigarette taxes were making it a very expensive habit, it was starting to affect insurance premiums, demographics were shifting, and we were understanding even more how unhealthy it is - it's not just that people couldn't smoke in restaurants anymore so they gave smoking up.
Again I'm not trying to equate smoking to obesity in terms of health risks laws or risk to others. I'm responding to those saying that not accommodating something in society doesnt reduce its rates...how do you explain the precipitous drop in smoking rates right after we stopped accommodating smoking on transit and in restraunts etc especially since the health risks were already well known prior to those changes.
Is shame and blocking access to transit and restraunts to obese people acceptable? No...I dont think so for the reasons people have given that it's a trait not a behavior you can just stop. But I resist this idea that societal pressure and lack of acceptance has no effect...of course it has an effect.
Yes, it has an effect. In the case of obesity, all too often the effect of shaming someone about who they are at the moment is (surprise) to make them ashamed of who they are at the moment, and to make them believe they don't deserve anything better than being obese and fat-shamed.
Even if you are correct in your assumption that it was the societal pressure (rather than increasing cigarette taxes, increasing health premiums for smoking, decreasing social benefits from smoking in the form of hanging out with friends or networking with co-workers during smoking breaks*, etc.) that led to a decrease in smoking, there is no reason to assume that negative societal pressure toward a trait that you cannot change in the short term would have the same effect as negative societal pressure that you can change in the short term (including deciding to avoid the negative social pressure at this particular time by not smoking this particular cigarette -- people who are obese can't avoid the negative social pressure at any given time by not eating this particular cookie or this particular hamburger. Kitten, obese people get fat-shamed when they choose to drink a diet coke with their hamburger.)
Negative social pressure on smokers of the sort you seem to be talking about (not accommodating them in public spaces) works for a behavior because the person can immediately avoid the negative social pressure in the moment and repeatedly in future moments from refraining in that instance from engaging in the behavior. There's nothing an obese person can do to immediately avoid the negative social pressure. Human beings are notoriously bad at doing things today to reap benefits tomorrow, much less months or (realistically, for an obese person) years from now.
*i.e., at first there were a few people who actually did quit when the surgeon general came out with his warning in the 60s. My mom did. And there were a few who maybe cut back on the cigarette they had been in the habit of having when they stopped by for a cup of coffee with a former smoker. And then there a few people who never start smoking who otherwise would have had it not been for the health warning. And at first that's a really small number that's hard to pick out of the statistical noise. But over time, the social benefit of lighting up a cigarette after dinner in a restaurant, even before they set up separate smoking areas, becomes marginally less because in the group of six say, one or two are refraining when 10 years earlier all six would have been smoking, because it was just what you did.8 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Marginalizing the obese doesn't help them become less obese.
Out of curiosity why would you think that it wouldn't decrease obesity rates to marginalize obesity? It certainly decreased the number of people who smoke when society marginalize smoking and made it inconvenient to be a smoker and if you are a smoker quitting isn't an easy fix and often takes years.
Just to be clear by "societal pressure" and "margalization" I don't mean being verbally abusive to overweight people, same as I don't mean that you should be verbally abusive to someone who smokes. That said I think having a bit of a mantra in society of how smoking or obesity are things to avoid and shun is a positive force overall, even if some people feel disadvantaged because of it.
There is also a big difference about having empathy for an individual and having just global societal acceptance of what could be argued is a negative trait. I think society should put pressure against obesity...doesn't mean I can't have empathy or understanding for an individual who is overweight. Not wanting society to accept obesity is not the same thing as promoting fat shaming.
How are you defining "marginalization" in this context? I suspect your definition isn't similar to the way the world marginalization is commonly used in areas like sociology, public health, and the social sciences more broadly. That is to say, the way you're using the word is likely different to the way that people who are doing research in fat studies are using the same word.
That is why I put it into quotes. Problem with these sorts of online debates is people read into what you are saying based on the words they choose for you. I started using marginalization only because other people said what I was talking about was marginalization.
All I mean is that society should actively discourage obesity in the same way we started actively discouraging smoking. Being obese should have some consequences within society. We shouldn't go out of our way to accommodate obesity. Trying to push for larger seats to accommodate people who are morbidly obese or acting like being obese is perfectly fine would be like having smoking sections in restaurants or programs on TV glorifying smoking. Wanting everyone to feel good about themselves is admirable of course but I think it can cause real damage to just act like obesity isn't a health issue. And yes, I do get that there is second-hand smoke but there isn't second-hand fat so the two aren't directly comparible, I still feel like the analogy does convey more the types of "marganilization" I am talking about . A society that has made it clear that that trait is something to be addressed and fixed by the individual rather than accepted.
What I do not mean is that I think its a good idea to mock individuals for their appearance.
Second hand smoke gives people cancer. Acting like other people's obesity is perfectly fine doesn't. A smoking section circulates the air through the restaurant.
The point of the analogy wasnt to equate the health risks of smoking and obesity...I acknowledge that they dont equate in exactly the way you are saying in the very post you are responding to if you keep reading past the part you highlighted to the part I highlighted.
The analogy is to the affect societal accommodation has on the proliferation of negative traits. Smoking was identified as a problem and the first response was to accommodate that by having separate areas for smokers which had no impact on smoking rates. This is at a time where everyone was already aware of the health risk. What really drove smoking rates down was the decision by society to no longer accommodate it.
I wasnt trying to act like you could get sick by being near overweight people come on man no reason to act like I was somehow claiming that. The analogy is more to say putting doublewide seats in all public transit vehicles to accommodate the morbidly obese.
The reason people enacted laws against smoking in public wasn't to nudge people towards dropping the habit, it was to protect people from getting cancer from second hand smoke. You can make an argument that these laws had the effect of reducing smoking - at the same time cigarette taxes were making it a very expensive habit, it was starting to affect insurance premiums, demographics were shifting, and we were understanding even more how unhealthy it is - it's not just that people couldn't smoke in restaurants anymore so they gave smoking up.
Again I'm not trying to equate smoking to obesity in terms of health risks laws or risk to others. I'm responding to those saying that not accommodating something in society doesnt reduce its rates...how do you explain the precipitous drop in smoking rates right after we stopped accommodating smoking on transit and in restraunts etc especially since the health risks were already well known prior to those changes.
Is shame and blocking access to transit and restraunts to obese people acceptable? No...I dont think so for the reasons people have given that it's a trait not a behavior you can just stop. But I resist this idea that societal pressure and lack of acceptance has no effect...of course it has an effect.
Yes, it has an effect. In the case of obesity, all too often the effect of shaming someone about who they are at the moment is (surprise) to make them ashamed of who they are at the moment, and to make them believe they don't deserve anything better than being obese and fat-shamed.
Even if you are correct in your assumption that it was the societal pressure (rather than increasing cigarette taxes, increasing health premiums for smoking, decreasing social benefits from smoking in the form of hanging out with friends or networking with co-workers during smoking breaks*, etc.) that led to a decrease in smoking, there is no reason to assume that negative societal pressure toward a trait that you cannot change in the short term would have the same effect as negative societal pressure that you can change in the short term (including deciding to avoid the negative social pressure at this particular time by not smoking this particular cigarette -- people who are obese can't avoid the negative social pressure at any given time by not eating this particular cookie or this particular hamburger. Kitten, obese people get fat-shamed when they choose to drink a diet coke with their hamburger.)
Negative social pressure on smokers of the sort you seem to be talking about (not accommodating them in public spaces) works for a behavior because the person can immediately avoid the negative social pressure in the moment and repeatedly in future moments from refraining in that instance from engaging in the behavior. There's nothing an obese person can do to immediately avoid the negative social pressure. Human beings are notoriously bad at doing things today to reap benefits tomorrow, much less months or (realistically, for an obese person) years from now.
*i.e., at first there were a few people who actually did quit when the surgeon general came out with his warning in the 60s. My mom did. And there were a few who maybe cut back on the cigarette they had been in the habit of having when they stopped by for a cup of coffee with a former smoker. And then there a few people who never start smoking who otherwise would have had it not been for the health warning. And at first that's a really small number that's hard to pick out of the statistical noise. But over time, the social benefit of lighting up a cigarette after dinner in a restaurant, even before they set up separate smoking areas, becomes marginally less because in the group of six say, one or two are refraining when 10 years earlier all six would have been smoking, because it was just what you did.
Well said and that's what I was trying to say. I could argue that never starting in the first place because it isn't cool anymore had a large impact too. Not starting to get fat is much harder and more nuanced because it's affected by way more factors than "it's not cool to smoke anymore", especially when eating is something we humans do by nature and smoking isn't.3 -
I occasionally fall down the internet rabbit hole on this stuff. There are so many concerns that our current society is glamorourizing and normalizing obesity. But there are also Fat Studies departments highlighting fat people as a marginalized community. I understand there are studies that show negative feedback and taunts or self loathing decrease the chances people succeed in change. Self love and respect usually helps. (No source, so if you have alternative perspectives I’m interested.)
What are your thoughts on this debate?
I find myself very torn because I agree with some of both. I don’t think people who are classified obese should be hidden from the medical realities. Obese isn’t a dirty word. It’s accurate. (Am still in that category myself). But I also think subways and airplanes should have accessibile seating and not shame obese passengers.
Glamorizing any body size be it obesity or the Barbie doll look is negative as I see it. I am no longer obese because I decided to improve my health and health markers with no focus on scale numbers. Fixing the health failures in my life due to my former way of eating fixed my obesity. Healthy people do not typically become obese but first are dealing with one or more health failures before obesity becomes another health concern.
Without self respect and love we can not truly respect and love others.0 -
Can you clarify what you mean in terms of what I bolded? I think I understand what you mean but I want to make sure that that's the case.GaleHawkins wrote: »I occasionally fall down the internet rabbit hole on this stuff. There are so many concerns that our current society is glamorourizing and normalizing obesity. But there are also Fat Studies departments highlighting fat people as a marginalized community. I understand there are studies that show negative feedback and taunts or self loathing decrease the chances people succeed in change. Self love and respect usually helps. (No source, so if you have alternative perspectives I’m interested.)
What are your thoughts on this debate?
I find myself very torn because I agree with some of both. I don’t think people who are classified obese should be hidden from the medical realities. Obese isn’t a dirty word. It’s accurate. (Am still in that category myself). But I also think subways and airplanes should have accessibile seating and not shame obese passengers.
Glamorizing any body size be it obesity or the Barbie doll look is negative as I see it. I am no longer obese because I decided to improve my health and health markers with no focus on scale numbers. Fixing the health failures in my life due to my former way of eating fixed my obesity. Healthy people do not typically become obese but first are dealing with one or more health failures before obesity becomes another health concern.
Without self respect and love we can not truly respect and love others.1 -
On the topic of extra wide seats, I think that they should be made available on airplanes, but at a premium cost, in the same way that tall people pay for an upgrade for seats with more leg room. And with respect to hospital beds (mentioned up thread), hospitals should be changing to serve their demographics. Not really debatable in my mind.5
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Marginalizing the obese doesn't help them become less obese.
Out of curiosity why would you think that it wouldn't decrease obesity rates to marginalize obesity? It certainly decreased the number of people who smoke when society marginalize smoking and made it inconvenient to be a smoker and if you are a smoker quitting isn't an easy fix and often takes years.
Just to be clear by "societal pressure" and "margalization" I don't mean being verbally abusive to overweight people, same as I don't mean that you should be verbally abusive to someone who smokes. That said I think having a bit of a mantra in society of how smoking or obesity are things to avoid and shun is a positive force overall, even if some people feel disadvantaged because of it.
There is also a big difference about having empathy for an individual and having just global societal acceptance of what could be argued is a negative trait. I think society should put pressure against obesity...doesn't mean I can't have empathy or understanding for an individual who is overweight. Not wanting society to accept obesity is not the same thing as promoting fat shaming.
How are you defining "marginalization" in this context? I suspect your definition isn't similar to the way the world marginalization is commonly used in areas like sociology, public health, and the social sciences more broadly. That is to say, the way you're using the word is likely different to the way that people who are doing research in fat studies are using the same word.
That is why I put it into quotes. Problem with these sorts of online debates is people read into what you are saying based on the words they choose for you. I started using marginalization only because other people said what I was talking about was marginalization.
All I mean is that society should actively discourage obesity in the same way we started actively discouraging smoking. Being obese should have some consequences within society. We shouldn't go out of our way to accommodate obesity. Trying to push for larger seats to accommodate people who are morbidly obese or acting like being obese is perfectly fine would be like having smoking sections in restaurants or programs on TV glorifying smoking. Wanting everyone to feel good about themselves is admirable of course but I think it can cause real damage to just act like obesity isn't a health issue. And yes, I do get that there is second-hand smoke but there isn't second-hand fat so the two aren't directly comparible, I still feel like the analogy does convey more the types of "marganilization" I am talking about . A society that has made it clear that that trait is something to be addressed and fixed by the individual rather than accepted.
What I do not mean is that I think its a good idea to mock individuals for their appearance.
Second hand smoke gives people cancer. Acting like other people's obesity is perfectly fine doesn't. A smoking section circulates the air through the restaurant.
The point of the analogy wasnt to equate the health risks of smoking and obesity...I acknowledge that they dont equate in exactly the way you are saying in the very post you are responding to if you keep reading past the part you highlighted to the part I highlighted.
The analogy is to the affect societal accommodation has on the proliferation of negative traits. Smoking was identified as a problem and the first response was to accommodate that by having separate areas for smokers which had no impact on smoking rates. This is at a time where everyone was already aware of the health risk. What really drove smoking rates down was the decision by society to no longer accommodate it.
I wasnt trying to act like you could get sick by being near overweight people come on man no reason to act like I was somehow claiming that. The analogy is more to say putting doublewide seats in all public transit vehicles to accommodate the morbidly obese.
The reason people enacted laws against smoking in public wasn't to nudge people towards dropping the habit, it was to protect people from getting cancer from second hand smoke. You can make an argument that these laws had the effect of reducing smoking - at the same time cigarette taxes were making it a very expensive habit, it was starting to affect insurance premiums, demographics were shifting, and we were understanding even more how unhealthy it is - it's not just that people couldn't smoke in restaurants anymore so they gave smoking up.
Again I'm not trying to equate smoking to obesity in terms of health risks laws or risk to others. I'm responding to those saying that not accommodating something in society doesnt reduce its rates...how do you explain the precipitous drop in smoking rates right after we stopped accommodating smoking on transit and in restraunts etc especially since the health risks were already well known prior to those changes.
Is shame and blocking access to transit and restraunts to obese people acceptable? No...I dont think so for the reasons people have given that it's a trait not a behavior you can just stop. But I resist this idea that societal pressure and lack of acceptance has no effect...of course it has an effect.
Asking how do you explain is shifting the burden of proof. That said, you're a smart enough person to know a lot more has happened in terms of how smoking is treated than just changes in public accomadation - indeed my understanding is smoking has been declining for much longer than bans in public spaces.
Others have pointed out the disanalgous part - you can stop someone from smoking as a habit by public prohibition, not accomadating an obese person doesn't actually put in a barrier to the behavior itself. Like to be truly comparable in the behavior modification, the changes would need to be things like restaurants not allowed to serve high calorie meals.0 -
Underweight people (anorexic) are marginalized too, but we don't normalize or glamorize them. Eating too much or too little to the point of detrimental health consequences should never become normalized. Insulting/bullying people for their weight should never be accepted, but normalizing obesity shouldn't be accepted either--they are two different things.7
-
goldthistime wrote: »On the topic of extra wide seats, I think that they should be made available on airplanes, but at a premium cost, in the same way that tall people pay for an upgrade for seats with more leg room. And with respect to hospital beds (mentioned up thread), hospitals should be changing to serve their demographics. Not really debatable in my mind.
That exists now, it's called Business or First Class.6 -
colettehugh wrote: »Underweight people (anorexic) are marginalized too, but we don't normalize or glamorize them. Eating too much or too little to the point of detrimental health consequences should never become normalized. Insulting/bullying people for their weight should never be accepted, but normalizing obesity shouldn't be accepted either--they are two different things.
To be honest, I have never seen obesity normalized except on the internet by people who would get followers (and money) out of it. I was fortunate not to have been bullied or shamed for my weight, and even I know that not being obese is better than being obese. I recognize, and without related emotional baggage, that obesity is a health risk. People around me loving me just the way I am did not fool me into thinking that being obese is glamorous because facts speak for themselves.7 -
goldthistime wrote: »On the topic of extra wide seats, I think that they should be made available on airplanes, but at a premium cost, in the same way that tall people pay for an upgrade for seats with more leg room. And with respect to hospital beds (mentioned up thread), hospitals should be changing to serve their demographics. Not really debatable in my mind.
That exists now, it's called Business or First Class.
I don’t travel much so I’m no expert, but the couple of times I looked at Business or First Class the cost was much more than double the cost of a seat in economy/coach. The solution mentioned earlier, to buy two seats would be cheaper (but still not entirely comfortable). To me, turning a three seat row into a two seat row and selling the seats at a premium seems like an easy solution. If someone were to make the argument that the airline would be “normalizing obesity” with that change, I would disagree. If they made that change and then offered it with no premium, maybe. But that seems problematic anyway. How would they determine who gets those seats?3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions