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
-
lynn_glenmont 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.
Smoking is something you do. You can tell people you can't smoke in certain locations. You have to go outside, at least 50 feet from the door, etc.
Being obese is something you are. Are we going to tell people they can't be obese in certain locations. Go outside, at least 50 feet from the door, until you aren't obese anymore?
tbh, being obese is often something you do as well. not always but often
No, being obese is not something you 'do'. The associated behaviour is 'eating a lot', and people who aren't obese do that too (if not as often). Whereas non-smokers don't smoke, by definition.9 -
lynn_glenmont 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.
Smoking is something you do. You can tell people you can't smoke in certain locations. You have to go outside, at least 50 feet from the door, etc.
Being obese is something you are. Are we going to tell people they can't be obese in certain locations. Go outside, at least 50 feet from the door, until you aren't obese anymore?
tbh, being obese is often something you do as well. not always but often
No, being obese is not something you 'do'. The associated behaviour is 'eating a lot', and people who aren't obese do that too (if not as often). Whereas non-smokers don't smoke, by definition.
nonetheless, it is still something you do. you get obese by eating too much. if you wanted, you could be technical and say its the result of something you do.11 -
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.20 -
amusedmonkey 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?
Yes, because as a non-drinker, I'm already paying for people's choice to drink (which increases risk of cancer even if consumed moderately). As someone who never compromises on sleep and has made a fundamental career change so that my job is less stressful and I don't need to commute as often, I'm also paying for people's choice to stay up late, work long and stressful hours, and commute long hours. I also don't mountain climb or have any dangerous hobbies. Choices that affect health are not limited to obesity. I don't deny even for a second that these are valid issues to discuss, but it's all too common to use taxes and faux concern for health as a shaming tactic.
Boom! Well said.11 -
NorthCascades wrote: »The diet industry is pretty big, multibillion-dollar. I've never seen ads for products that promise to make you fat, there are thousands of products and services promising to make people skinny. If society really was glamorizing obesity, everybody would want to become obese like the glamourous people.
This is the plot of the movie - Branded (2012).
Horrible movie, but an interesting premise on the power of marketing.1 -
If fat acceptance and body positivity increase someone's self-respect, that can only be good for the world.
We each have different ways to accept ourselves and breed positivity.
As far as the health implications of obesity, someone else's weight and body fat are part of their own private health information. I don't know what a stranger's health markers are by looking. It's not my business. How they feel about their body is not my business either.
edited for grammar10 -
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.12 -
so many like to throw stones while living in glass houses
10 -
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?
The problem here is that being glamorously underweight is associated with an even higher risk of mortality than all but the worst morbid obesity, yet it’s, well, glamorous. It’s clear from the distinction that the primary motivation behind fat-shaming isn’t concern with health.12 -
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.
By not accommodating people, we're not allowing them to freely exist. What someone else said about obesity not being a verb as compared to smoking is perhaps even more apt in relation to this. People can smoke outside and still go to a restaurant. Smoking isn't embodied in the same way that being X weight is. On the other hand, if there aren't chairs/seats that fit someone at a restaurant, they can't eat in that restaurant. Obesity isn't a verb. It isn't a thing that you can do or stop doing in a small period of time.
Of course, your public transportation example is kind of amusing because I suspect people walk far more when they're able to use public transportation than when they have no option but to drive.8 -
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.1 -
You can't propose the same solution to obesity as you would for smoking for several reasons:
- The catalyst for obesity is evolutional, storing fat in times of abundance is one of the easiest habits to learn because it's ingrained in us. Not being "cool" is enough to stop a teenager from taking up smoking.
- The way society handles both is different. Obesity stigmatizes the person, smoking stigmatizes the behavior. It's good enough for most people that a smoker doesn't smoke next to them, very few judge smokers for their existence. Introducing the same limitations would only make the stigma worse.
- Smoking is an on/off behavior. You either smoke or you don't. You can't flip a switch and quit eating.
- You stop being a smoker as soon as you quit smoking. You don't stop being obese as soon as you start dieting.
- Limitations on smoking involve steps that make the act of smoking harder, like taxing cigarettes and banning smoking in public places. Limitations on obese people involve making existing harder without doing anything about the act of overeating itself unless you want to triple food prices and ban eating in public.
I could go on, but I don't want to make the post too long.15 -
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?5 -
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.
That's true with medical insurance too. And if you're not obese you probably enjoy better health, lower risk if many types of illness, and better treatment by society.0 -
the only thing that affects our insurance rate with my work is smoking. not weight. i've not had insurance where i was punished for being overweight0
-
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.8 -
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?
In some cases, most not
0 -
In the US, you don't pay higher health insurance premiums based on BMI, or any other health condition. The only things that affect health insurance premiums is age and if you are a smoker.1
-
-
Theoldguy1 wrote: »
It depends how you get your insurance. If you get it through the individual marketplace exchanges, insurers can't charge you more for your BMI or obesity. If you get it through an employer, your employer can raise your employee contribution portion for not meeting certain "wellness goals", which isn't as cut and dry as charging someone more for having a higher BMI. But there are certain circumstances where BMI could play a factor in that.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 897 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions