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.

Body Positive Movement - For or against?

1911131415

Replies

  • PWHF
    PWHF Posts: 221 Member
    ssurvivor wrote: »
    PWHF wrote: »
    mbaker566 wrote: »
    PWHF wrote: »

    Watching what you eat and working out is not a privilege,

    they are a privilege. sometimes, you have little choice in what you eat. availability, finances, budget, non1st world problems. sometimes, you work 2-3 jobs, have kids or family obligations, long commutes.
    when you are struggling to get by or survive, all of it becomes much more fuzzy.

    Choosing to not overeat and become obese is not a privilege. being able to afford a gym could be seen as a privilege but anyone with an internet connection can get on Youtube and learn how to get and stay in shape without any equipment.

    Becoming overweight is is the result of having too much food - now that's privilege.

    Self medicating with fatty and sugary foods due to an unprivileged life situation is a different animal.

    Actually...

    There is a documented correlation between poverty and obesity. There are parts of North America where the nearest grocery store, Walmart or farm is over an hour's drive away. But if you don't have a car and you're working 2-3 jobs to avoid homelessness, what can you do? You eat what you can get your hands on. Even if that means Fruit Loops, Ramen, and mac & cheese with hot dogs every day. Moreover, not everyone has access to the internet. If you can get to a computer with internet, you're looking for basic survival tools (jobs, apartments, childcare, etc.). You're not thinking about thinking about home exercise programs that you might be able to fit in between your jobs.


    Plus, when you're straddling the poverty lines, it's harder to see long term gains. And in the short term, the unhealthy stuff is cheaper. Why pay $2.99 for a portion of trail mix when you can buy a huge bag of Cheetos for $1? And, when eating the processed stuff, you don't have to eat much (i.e., often) to gain weight. Between the water retention from the high sodium content and the calorie density of the food, you can easily gain weight eating only two meals a day. But, at the same time, because of the low nutrition value of these calorie dense food, you'll need to eat larger portions to feel satiated.


    I used to be a die hard "you can eat healthy on a budget!" people until I met someone who is actually living in an honest to goodness Food Dessert. My eyes were opened to their struggle the moment she called my simple green salad with homemade dressing "rich people food." Since my salad is part of my "budget friendly" rotation, I did some research and learned the following:
      [li] while many Farmer's Markets support WIC and SNAP,
    it doesn't matter if you can't get there. [/li]

    [li] the neighborhood "stores" are no better than gas stations,[/li]

    [li] if UPS delivers to your neighborhood, they'd leave your grocery box in a place where the neighborhood crackheads and homeless can steal your *kitten* before you know it's there, and [/li]

    [li] Most people only donate to food banks around Xmas and it's usually expired or nearly expired junk food.[/li]


    Instead of being judgmental, we need to step up as a community and help these people live better. Donate beans, rice, plain pasta, canned vegetables and other minimally processed foods to your local food bank once a month. Talk to your company about creating a Sit 'n Stretch or walking club. Talk to your boss about accepting Thrive (or other grocery delivery) boxes at work. Drop off healthy dishes to your overworked/over-tired neighbors. Volunteer for food insecurity focused organizations (like soup kitchens, MOW, etc.). Volunteer to drive someone to the grocery store once a month.... Believe it or not, these things take less energy than judging.

    This makes sense, I'd be interested to see if there are stats that show what % of obese/overweight people are in this income bracket. So let's say that there is a section of the (US) population who genuinely are in bad shape because of poverty - what about the others?

    I think the judgemental stuff is aimed at those who do have the choice of what they can eat. There are a lot of 'privileged' people who absolutely do have the choice and choose not to.

    The issue I see is that a big part of making positive life choices and sticking to them is developing mental strength, resilience and staying motivated. There is a whole motivation section of this forum dedicated to helping people with that part and the introductions section is full of 'hey I'm back again' posts from people who struggle with this.

    This is hard work, it takes a long time, there are no instant results, we fall off the wagon, sometimes it looks and feels like we're just spinning our wheels - but we carry on and do the work required to develop new habits and lifestyles.

    I firmly believe that the 'check your privilege' mindset runs counter to this and does not help anyone who is unhappy about themselves and wants to change. Maybe re-frame it as something like 'yeah it's unfair and that sucks, life is like that and unfortunately it's not going to change. The only thing you can do is take the cards you've been dealt and make the best of them because no one is going to do that for you - and hey, once you get going it's actually really rewarding and empowering'

    Kind of like a personal responsibility bootcamp to build the foundations of long term habit/lifestyle change. The first thing to go is excuses, including other people's 'priviledge' - that stuff's just holding you back.
  • Phirrgus
    Phirrgus Posts: 1,902 Member
    PWHF wrote: »
    Thanks! There is a chemical rush but it's just a lot slower than the instant gratification from drugs/alcohol/sugar/internet drama.. Slowing it all down and regulating the dopamine (is it dopamine) flow seems to be the catch all for all of it.

    What I've noticed is that I get 'triggered' when people use the word privilege to suggest that someone has achieved the results in their life because of privilege when that person in fact has made very touch choices, gone without, swapped instant for delayed gratification and worked very hard to get what they want out of life.

    My observation is that the word privilege has been so badly abused that it's now just an object of ridicule
    (just watch South Park). What I'm seeing is myself now is a tendency to get triggered which I will work through, in future if I see a thread about body positivity in a diet and fitness forum I'll think 'Yeah that's gonna be a doozy..' and not even open it up.

    I just cannot agree with that bold hard enough, and privilege isn't the only term that's been abused badly. In keeping with the topic though, I'll stick with mbaker566's assertion that it's largely a matter of perspective, until it isn't. What I mean by that is that things like white privilege are real. I just don't think it's as much of a factor as a few make it out to be. Anecdote incoming:

    I was out with a friend of mine who asked if I would like to look at apartments with her. She had an appointment at one complex. It was a "high end" kind of place, but she had the money. Highly educated, great job etc. She's also African American. The manager at the rental office met her, apologized and stated that the last available unit was just taken. As we were leaving a white woman came in and as my and I were chatting about where to go next, we over heard this woman state clearly that she just thought she would stop in and see if anything was available. The managers reply? "Of course, we have a couple. How many bedrooms do you want?"

    This was blatant racism and "white privilege" in full swing right in front of my eyes. That was 100% real, and is something that any decent person should resist.

    I've also been told to "check my white privilege" which is hilarious to anyone who knows me. I'm Lebanese and Syrian lol. But I guess I look and speak white enough to merit that comment.

    On the one hand, my life's experience lets me see both sides of the coin, but on the other, I've also learned to "keep it real". What privileges I'm blessed to have, I've worked hard for, and I'm very careful to never, ever minimize another person for having, or not having certain privilege. It's much easier to give people the benefit of the doubt and try to treat everyone equally.
  • CSARdiver
    CSARdiver Posts: 6,257 Member
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    These movements grow in roughly the same manner - from a legitimate concern which needs to be reviewed, but once addressed the momentum isn't stopped. People are too invested into the political animus and branch far beyond, so movements unreliant on competency inevitably trend to corruption - unchecked consolidation of power.

    What is the purpose of recognizing privilege? Is there a resulting action from this? If one was to conduct a comparative analysis of successful and unsuccessful individuals and adapt behaviors to better prepare the unsuccessful, then this has potential for good. If used to remove "roadblocks" this has potential for good. Check the system for systemic unfairness - again potential for good. If simply used to fulfill a narcissistic need to justify fantasy and reject reality, then there is no potential for good. If used politically to pit one group against another - while there may be a theoretical potential for good historically this has resulted in starvation and genocide.

    It's also incredibly dishonest (although insidiously brilliant) how binary thought results in very specific recognition of privilege in certain areas while completely ignoring others. Although I suspect this will continue to increase given time as a good majority active seek and promote some manner of how they do are part of a victim class. It is far easier to destroy than create, as such far easier to criticize others than change your behavior.

    There's a foundational flaw in the logic which presumes that man is good and that if the system were to only be tweaked, life would be better. Reality is quite the opposite as your chances of making this worse greatly exceed your chances for improving anything for anyone. Man has an equal capacity for good and evil, but left unchecked trends to evil. The most effective means of mitigating this is serving a higher purpose beyond the individual - beyond generations.

    Another foundational flaw is that of zero sum - that the assets are fixed. The resentful look at whoever they see as having life better and cannot see beyond privilege - skinny genes, high metabolism, etc. The fit did not get so by making the obese, nor did the obese suffer at the hands of the fit. Assets in nearly all systems are variable - they expand and contract - are created and destroyed.

    The fatal flaw in privilege, and this also lies at the heart of postmoderism is the limit of scope. Any hypothesis worth review is taken to extreme to ensure consistency. Privilege is highly scoped by very specific criteria to establish a false narrative to gain political power. Competency for example is a very real privilege. The competent are given increasing challenges while the incompetent are given less. Attractiveness, sex, sexual orientation, gender, age, hair color, eye color, height, weight, epidermal pigmentation, IQ, EQ, culture, race, creed, genetics - carried out infinitesimally this brings us and infinitesimal number of privileges, which brings us inevitably to the individual. No two humans think and act the same every time - and you've once again stumbled into the age of enlightenment. Congratulations! You've discovered what we figured out 300 years ago (which figured out what we knew 2000 years ago).



    So, the bolded sentence isn't using privilege in the way that it is used by most people who think talking about privilege is an important and enlightening thing to do sometimes. To them, privilege is not the inherent genetic characteristic you have (like skinny genes or high metabolism, or even being white or male). Privilege is all the benefits society accords you because you have characteristic, including the privilege of not having to even notice that you get benefits that people who don't have that characteristic don't get.



    Then the correction would be to precisely define privilege and we can effectively debate. The next step would be to review data to verify that preconceived notions are indeed correct.

    This would be acceptable and as you say enlightening if done in review of other key characteristics. If you're only looking at one trait, then as there are an infinite number of ways of viewing things, you have a corresponding chance of reaching an incorrect conclusion.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,899 Member
    PWHF wrote: »
    ssurvivor wrote: »
    PWHF wrote: »
    mbaker566 wrote: »
    PWHF wrote: »

    Watching what you eat and working out is not a privilege,

    they are a privilege. sometimes, you have little choice in what you eat. availability, finances, budget, non1st world problems. sometimes, you work 2-3 jobs, have kids or family obligations, long commutes.
    when you are struggling to get by or survive, all of it becomes much more fuzzy.

    Choosing to not overeat and become obese is not a privilege. being able to afford a gym could be seen as a privilege but anyone with an internet connection can get on Youtube and learn how to get and stay in shape without any equipment.

    Becoming overweight is is the result of having too much food - now that's privilege.

    Self medicating with fatty and sugary foods due to an unprivileged life situation is a different animal.

    Actually...

    There is a documented correlation between poverty and obesity. There are parts of North America where the nearest grocery store, Walmart or farm is over an hour's drive away. But if you don't have a car and you're working 2-3 jobs to avoid homelessness, what can you do? You eat what you can get your hands on. Even if that means Fruit Loops, Ramen, and mac & cheese with hot dogs every day. Moreover, not everyone has access to the internet. If you can get to a computer with internet, you're looking for basic survival tools (jobs, apartments, childcare, etc.). You're not thinking about thinking about home exercise programs that you might be able to fit in between your jobs.


    Plus, when you're straddling the poverty lines, it's harder to see long term gains. And in the short term, the unhealthy stuff is cheaper. Why pay $2.99 for a portion of trail mix when you can buy a huge bag of Cheetos for $1? And, when eating the processed stuff, you don't have to eat much (i.e., often) to gain weight. Between the water retention from the high sodium content and the calorie density of the food, you can easily gain weight eating only two meals a day. But, at the same time, because of the low nutrition value of these calorie dense food, you'll need to eat larger portions to feel satiated.


    I used to be a die hard "you can eat healthy on a budget!" people until I met someone who is actually living in an honest to goodness Food Dessert. My eyes were opened to their struggle the moment she called my simple green salad with homemade dressing "rich people food." Since my salad is part of my "budget friendly" rotation, I did some research and learned the following:
      [li] while many Farmer's Markets support WIC and SNAP,
    it doesn't matter if you can't get there. [/li]

    [li] the neighborhood "stores" are no better than gas stations,[/li]

    [li] if UPS delivers to your neighborhood, they'd leave your grocery box in a place where the neighborhood crackheads and homeless can steal your *kitten* before you know it's there, and [/li]

    [li] Most people only donate to food banks around Xmas and it's usually expired or nearly expired junk food.[/li]


    Instead of being judgmental, we need to step up as a community and help these people live better. Donate beans, rice, plain pasta, canned vegetables and other minimally processed foods to your local food bank once a month. Talk to your company about creating a Sit 'n Stretch or walking club. Talk to your boss about accepting Thrive (or other grocery delivery) boxes at work. Drop off healthy dishes to your overworked/over-tired neighbors. Volunteer for food insecurity focused organizations (like soup kitchens, MOW, etc.). Volunteer to drive someone to the grocery store once a month.... Believe it or not, these things take less energy than judging.

    This makes sense, I'd be interested to see if there are stats that show what % of obese/overweight people are in this income bracket. So let's say that there is a section of the (US) population who genuinely are in bad shape because of poverty - what about the others?

    I don't know why you are focusing on the US. There was a UK poster here recently who was saying the relationship between income and obesity was even greater in the UK -- probably because it's so common in all classes in the US, although I do think there's an income difference here too.

    It's not mostly due to food deserts. Although food deserts are real, if you look at the stats it's a pretty small portion of the population affected by them. (And here in Chicago it's common for people who are in technical food deserts to work in other areas, accessible by public transit, so similarly they have access to real grocery stores and green markets, and we have some good green markets in poorer areas. There are of course still real barriers that poor people have that others do not -- and it would be wrong to ignore that -- but it's not as simplistic as some make it.)

    Also, I'm not sure why some expensive "trail mix" is presumed to be more healthy than Cheerios or various other cereals, many of which have no sugar added, but that's an aside.
    I think the judgemental stuff is aimed at those who do have the choice of what they can eat. There are a lot of 'privileged' people who absolutely do have the choice and choose not to.

    Sure, but you don't know what's going on with any particular person you see out and about, so why be judgmental? How does that help?
    The issue I see is that a big part of making positive life choices and sticking to them is developing mental strength, resilience and staying motivated. There is a whole motivation section of this forum dedicated to helping people with that part and the introductions section is full of 'hey I'm back again' posts from people who struggle with this.

    This is hard work, it takes a long time, there are no instant results, we fall off the wagon, sometimes it looks and feels like we're just spinning our wheels - but we carry on and do the work required to develop new habits and lifestyles.

    Yes, helping people is a good thing. No need to go around judging random people and assume they aren't the same ones who are trying.
    I firmly believe that the 'check your privilege' mindset runs counter to this and does not help anyone who is unhappy about themselves and wants to change. Maybe re-frame it as something like 'yeah it's unfair and that sucks, life is like that and unfortunately it's not going to change. The only thing you can do is take the cards you've been dealt and make the best of them because no one is going to do that for you - and hey, once you get going it's actually really rewarding and empowering'

    Kind of like a personal responsibility bootcamp to build the foundations of long term habit/lifestyle change. The first thing to go is excuses, including other people's 'priviledge' - that stuff's just holding you back.

    I think "check your privilege" is overused and ignores that people have all kinds of hardships (I again recommend the book I mentioned upthread), but I think realizing that you have some advantages that not everyone has is a healthy thing. I know I do, as well as some individual stumbling blocks that not everyone has.

    On the whole I don't think it's that useful a concept for weight loss, since it brings in a political debate that's going to muddy the waters.

    But just focusing on myself, there are times I find it really easy to exercise a good amount and eat a proper amount and lose or maintain weight, and other times I have not. I don't think I was a different person at those times, so I think more was going on to explain the differences. To help people, if that's your goal, I think you need to be able to empathize with the reasons it's hard for them. If you cannot, you likely are not the person who can help them.

    For example, I find extreme pickiness or "fussiness" (a word I hate) with food, such as adult people saying "I won't eat vegetables or the like to be annoying and something I cannot empathize with. So I generally stay out of those threads.

    All that aside, none of this has much to do with a thread on body positivity, which applies to people non obese and often quite fit, as well as overweight.
  • PWHF
    PWHF Posts: 221 Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    PWHF wrote: »
    ssurvivor wrote: »
    PWHF wrote: »
    mbaker566 wrote: »
    PWHF wrote: »

    Watching what you eat and working out is not a privilege,

    they are a privilege. sometimes, you have little choice in what you eat. availability, finances, budget, non1st world problems. sometimes, you work 2-3 jobs, have kids or family obligations, long commutes.
    when you are struggling to get by or survive, all of it becomes much more fuzzy.

    Choosing to not overeat and become obese is not a privilege. being able to afford a gym could be seen as a privilege but anyone with an internet connection can get on Youtube and learn how to get and stay in shape without any equipment.

    Becoming overweight is is the result of having too much food - now that's privilege.

    Self medicating with fatty and sugary foods due to an unprivileged life situation is a different animal.

    Actually...

    There is a documented correlation between poverty and obesity. There are parts of North America where the nearest grocery store, Walmart or farm is over an hour's drive away. But if you don't have a car and you're working 2-3 jobs to avoid homelessness, what can you do? You eat what you can get your hands on. Even if that means Fruit Loops, Ramen, and mac & cheese with hot dogs every day. Moreover, not everyone has access to the internet. If you can get to a computer with internet, you're looking for basic survival tools (jobs, apartments, childcare, etc.). You're not thinking about thinking about home exercise programs that you might be able to fit in between your jobs.


    Plus, when you're straddling the poverty lines, it's harder to see long term gains. And in the short term, the unhealthy stuff is cheaper. Why pay $2.99 for a portion of trail mix when you can buy a huge bag of Cheetos for $1? And, when eating the processed stuff, you don't have to eat much (i.e., often) to gain weight. Between the water retention from the high sodium content and the calorie density of the food, you can easily gain weight eating only two meals a day. But, at the same time, because of the low nutrition value of these calorie dense food, you'll need to eat larger portions to feel satiated.


    I used to be a die hard "you can eat healthy on a budget!" people until I met someone who is actually living in an honest to goodness Food Dessert. My eyes were opened to their struggle the moment she called my simple green salad with homemade dressing "rich people food." Since my salad is part of my "budget friendly" rotation, I did some research and learned the following:
      [li] while many Farmer's Markets support WIC and SNAP,
    it doesn't matter if you can't get there. [/li]

    [li] the neighborhood "stores" are no better than gas stations,[/li]

    [li] if UPS delivers to your neighborhood, they'd leave your grocery box in a place where the neighborhood crackheads and homeless can steal your *kitten* before you know it's there, and [/li]

    [li] Most people only donate to food banks around Xmas and it's usually expired or nearly expired junk food.[/li]


    Instead of being judgmental, we need to step up as a community and help these people live better. Donate beans, rice, plain pasta, canned vegetables and other minimally processed foods to your local food bank once a month. Talk to your company about creating a Sit 'n Stretch or walking club. Talk to your boss about accepting Thrive (or other grocery delivery) boxes at work. Drop off healthy dishes to your overworked/over-tired neighbors. Volunteer for food insecurity focused organizations (like soup kitchens, MOW, etc.). Volunteer to drive someone to the grocery store once a month.... Believe it or not, these things take less energy than judging.

    This makes sense, I'd be interested to see if there are stats that show what % of obese/overweight people are in this income bracket. So let's say that there is a section of the (US) population who genuinely are in bad shape because of poverty - what about the others?

    I don't know why you are focusing on the US. There was a UK poster here recently who was saying the relationship between income and obesity was even greater in the UK -- probably because it's so common in all classes in the US, although I do think there's an income difference here too.

    It's not mostly due to food deserts. Although food deserts are real, if you look at the stats it's a pretty small portion of the population affected by them. (And here in Chicago it's common for people who are in technical food deserts to work in other areas, accessible by public transit, so similarly they have access to real grocery stores and green markets, and we have some good green markets in poorer areas. There are of course still real barriers that poor people have that others do not -- and it would be wrong to ignore that -- but it's not as simplistic as some make it.)

    Also, I'm not sure why some expensive "trail mix" is presumed to be more healthy than Cheerios or various other cereals, many of which have no sugar added, but that's an aside.
    I think the judgemental stuff is aimed at those who do have the choice of what they can eat. There are a lot of 'privileged' people who absolutely do have the choice and choose not to.

    Sure, but you don't know what's going on with any particular person you see out and about, so why be judgmental? How does that help?
    The issue I see is that a big part of making positive life choices and sticking to them is developing mental strength, resilience and staying motivated. There is a whole motivation section of this forum dedicated to helping people with that part and the introductions section is full of 'hey I'm back again' posts from people who struggle with this.

    This is hard work, it takes a long time, there are no instant results, we fall off the wagon, sometimes it looks and feels like we're just spinning our wheels - but we carry on and do the work required to develop new habits and lifestyles.

    Yes, helping people is a good thing. No need to go around judging random people and assume they aren't the same ones who are trying.
    I firmly believe that the 'check your privilege' mindset runs counter to this and does not help anyone who is unhappy about themselves and wants to change. Maybe re-frame it as something like 'yeah it's unfair and that sucks, life is like that and unfortunately it's not going to change. The only thing you can do is take the cards you've been dealt and make the best of them because no one is going to do that for you - and hey, once you get going it's actually really rewarding and empowering'

    Kind of like a personal responsibility bootcamp to build the foundations of long term habit/lifestyle change. The first thing to go is excuses, including other people's 'priviledge' - that stuff's just holding you back.

    I think "check your privilege" is overused and ignores that people have all kinds of hardships (I again recommend the book I mentioned upthread), but I think realizing that you have some advantages that not everyone has is a healthy thing. I know I do, as well as some individual stumbling blocks that not everyone has.

    On the whole I don't think it's that useful a concept for weight loss, since it brings in a political debate that's going to muddy the waters.

    But just focusing on myself, there are times I find it really easy to exercise a good amount and eat a proper amount and lose or maintain weight, and other times I have not. I don't think I was a different person at those times, so I think more was going on to explain the differences. To help people, if that's your goal, I think you need to be able to empathize with the reasons it's hard for them. If you cannot, you likely are not the person who can help them.

    For example, I find extreme pickiness or "fussiness" (a word I hate) with food, such as adult people saying "I won't eat vegetables or the like to be annoying and something I cannot empathize with. So I generally stay out of those threads.

    All that aside, none of this has much to do with a thread on body positivity, which applies to people non obese and often quite fit, as well as overweight.

    Polarisation and generalisation are unhelpful, a thread about body positivity on a health and fitness forum is bound to stoke up a lot of drama. The fact that the word 'priviledge' has come up so much is quite telling.

    I'm sure there are plenty of good folks in the body positivity movement who aren't blaming their situation on their lack of priviledge and using that as an excuse to not do anything about it while hating on said priviledged people (as evidenced above in Carl's and Barbie's posts).

    Life choices and personal responsibility are all that count in this game. If someone tells me to 'check my priviledge' I shall try and feel some compassion for them and their unfortunate situation of not having the priviledge of accepting that they will get out of life what they put into it. I didn't accept that myself for a long time - I've been there...

    So - no more judgy, definitely no triggering, just "I'm sorry you feel that way and I hope soon you reach the point where you take control"

    Feels much better :smiley:
  • aokoye
    aokoye Posts: 3,495 Member
    I tried to embrace body positivity after getting help for my eating disorder.

    I have to say, I started to change in a positive manner, until I dipped into the community, they are a militant group who want positivity towards people their shape but despise any women who fit society's standards, and don't like men because we are 'privillaged' with our bodies in society which is a load of BS.

    For me body positivity was treating my body in a positive manner by stopping the self hate (which I have all my life) and been healthy.... But noooo mention weightloss and you will get people having a meltdown saying you're against the movement and fat positivity (which I am against)

    All in all, the movent shouldn't be called body positivity, it should be called - fat advocate movement, because that's what they advocate, I'm not even sorry for saying that because I support people, I encourage people, but for supporting and encouraging people I'm apparently 'hateful' so I'm completely against the movement

    But I strongly encourage people to be positive and nicer towards themselves.
    I was going to bow out of this thread for a handful of reasons but your post reeled me back in.
    What I bolded is why I have been silently pushing back about this "community" aspect some people have been mentioning here. I think, in general, that using community as a catch all for EVERYONE who is of X identity or subscribes to Y general idea isn't useful in a lot of, or perhaps most, cases. It assumes that everyone is thinking the same thing, is in the same organization (and is in agreement with everything that organization stands for), has a central body of leadership to get direction some, and/or has the same ethos. I identify as queer, but I wouldn't consider myself part of any one queer community, larger or smaller for a lot of the reasons I discussed above.

    Even in the case of smaller communities that I would actually be ok with considering a community (ie my rowing club is a "community" of rowers), there's going to be a lot of heterogeneity. On top of the heterogeneity, there will people in communities that one might be in who may think, say, or do things that you might not agree with, that are hurtful to you or others, etc.
  • cbstewart88
    cbstewart88 Posts: 453 Member
    I tend not to buy into any "movements" that tell me how I "should" think. If I am unhappy with myself for any reason, it is my responsibility to change or not to change. It is not society's duty to adapt their views so I feel better about me.
  • threewins
    threewins Posts: 1,455 Member
    I ask myself a question for these types of issues. "How does this affect me?". It doesn't. It's like tattooing and body piercing. I come from a time when the only people who got tattoos were sailors, convicts and people wanting racial type tattoos (such as Maori women getting mokos). I don't like seeing tattoos on people, but it doesn't affect me, so I accept it and move on.

    The body positivity movement is good in one way. I have never considered myself attractive but I've never seen myself as ugly. I can't imagine what it's like to consider myself ugly, to not want to look in the mirror, or avoid mirrors and refuse photographs of myself. In that respect I think that it is a good thing.

    It's also a bad thing in a sense of telling people that it's alright to be very heavy.

    So the answer to OP's question is.. It's complicated.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,899 Member
    edited September 2019
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    PWHF wrote: »
    Here's an interesting historical take on how being overweight was a display of status and 'privilege':

    https://www.sermo.com/history-obesity-renaissance-1910/

    "The first post in this 3 part series on the history of obesity discussed the view of obesity from the Stone Age to the Renaissance, when fatness or obesity was viewed as beautiful, healthy, and a sign of prosperity. This post discusses a global view of obesity from the renaissance to 1910.

    Obesity remained a symbol of beauty worldwide. There were famines during these centuries. The Irish famine is one of the most famous. (A) People died without sufficient food during this and other famines. Prosperity meant having enough money to buy or own food, and to eat well. The wealthy ate in excess, assuring themselves status and “good health.” Throughout the world, those who were leaders or rulers tended to have more fat on their bodies and withstood the famines more easily."
    aokoye wrote: »
    TheBigFb wrote: »
    each too there own. do as you please, but dont come crying when it all goes wrong

    What do you mean by "when it all goes wrong"? Are you assuming that body positivity is only about being over or underweight.

    To me it means accepting people as they are, not discriminating or 'fat shaming' people. What people must understand and accept however is that they are 100% responsible for their life choices and how they treat their bodies. Choosing to be overweight is choosing to be unhealthy and in a lot of cases unhappy. That's not the fault of people who have chosen differently and it's not a 'privilege' either.

    That said I know it's not as simple as healthy food is expensive and there's the whole issue of comfort eating as a drug.

    In the UK we have state run healthcare so if there was a 'body positive' movement here it would be an issue.

    Personally, I'd like to know what the person who posted the comment meant.

    However, you continue to post as if "body positivity" meant choosing to be obese, which it does not.

    The time I most needed body positivity was when I was in high school through my mid 20s, all times at which I was normal weight, btw. And as I mentioned earlier, when I was fat, moving to a place of more self-acceptance and body positivity, and focusing on what I had control over (even though I did not yet fully accept I had control over my body) and what my body could do helped me arrive at a place where I could lose weight and become very fit (and I decided I'd be as fit as possible no matter my weight -- I of course did lose, but focusing on something other than the number on the scale was important for me).

    There are a lot of very fit women who focus on body positivity. Here's one example: https://www.self.com/story/this-womans-bikini-photo-is-going-viral-for-a-reason-you-might-not-expect

    https://www.girlsgonestrong.com/blog/ggs-spotlight/molly-galbraiths-spotlight-a-womans-worth/

    Since we are now back to weird generalizations about people who speak about body positivity being militant pro fat activists or some such nonsense, I will repost my links to someone I think is more representative, not that it's really a movement at all, it's a concept.

    And I will note again that when I would have most benefitted from it was during a time I was not overweight at all, but I could see nothing but flaws and had an attitude toward my body that made me less healthy, not more.

    Body positivity makes me more able to appreciate other people's bodies (not in a skeevy way), btw, and not at all judgy of people in great shape. I find people in great shape inspirational, even if the particular body type is different from mine or not my aesthetic goal. Contrary to the claims by some, it made me much less envious, not more. It made me more focused on how I could be happy with what I have to work with, and the things over which I have control, even though obviously there are some body types I will never have. And it made me focused on non-aesthetic things, like how much I can lift or how far I can run or other things I can achieve. For me, this is all way more healthy than hating my body (and myself) for not being perfect. Zero to do with justifying being obese, although I also don't feel a need to judge others for being overweight.
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 9,950 Member
    PWHF wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    PWHF wrote: »
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    PWHF wrote: »
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »

    There are a bunch of terms in common parlance that seem to bring out symbol-reactive behavior, and feed polarization. I wish there were ways we could be trying to understand the pictures in each other’s heads, rather than reacting to specific words we use to try to communicate them.

    ^^^This. Communication can be difficult as it is. When terms commonly used by several different people are defined by those people in several different ways communication can stagnate and a war of words breaks out. In my tiny corner of the world experience in the form of walking in the others shoes will always carry more weight than academically learned definitions. An example would be the short account of two young children answering a quiz question that I read about decades ago. 1 child was from a poor family, the other from a wealthy family.

    Question: "What do you place your tea cup on when you put it down?"

    A saucer or the table?

    The poor child said table, the wealthy said saucer. Both are right per their 'learned' experience.

    "Privilege" can be used with positive or negative connotations. It would be nice if that, and other "hot" terms were used as originally intended instead of insults. Having a privilege is not a bad thing.

    100% agree. Also on the polarization thing. I've noticed in myself that I find arguing on the Internet very stimulating and it must be releasing some kind of chemical rush in my brain. I know it's not good for me so I'm going to mindfully and consciously stop doing it. :smiley:

    :D I keep finding myself coming back for more lol. I don't reply often, but do acknowledge I might have a problem :p

    Same here - just another bad habit that needs kicking into touch. My life just seems to be a succession of things I have to stop doing... At least i can enjoy my privilege (for now!)

    Just a mild suggestion: Don't stop. You seem like a smart, decent guy: You should hang around, and join in.

    Learn to recognize that chemical rush you mentioned, and stop before you hit post. Read again, think more, post something less polemical, something that fosters communication or connection.

    There could be a chemical rush from that, too, ya never know. ;)

    Thanks! There is a chemical rush but it's just a lot slower than the instant gratification from drugs/alcohol/sugar/internet drama.. Slowing it all down and regulating the dopamine (is it dopamine) flow seems to be the catch all for all of it.

    What I've noticed is that I get 'triggered' when people use the word privilege to suggest that someone has achieved the results in their life because of privilege when that person in fact has made very touch choices, gone without, swapped instant for delayed gratification and worked very hard to get what they want out of life.

    My observation is that the word privilege has been so badly abused that it's now just an object of ridicule (just watch South Park). What I'm seeing is myself now is a tendency to get triggered which I will work through, in future if I see a thread about body positivity in a diet and fitness forum I'll think 'Yeah that's gonna be a doozy..' and not even open it up.

    That people who disagree with an approach or an idea choose to ridicule it says more about those doing the ridiculing than it does about the idea.
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 9,950 Member
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    These movements grow in roughly the same manner - from a legitimate concern which needs to be reviewed, but once addressed the momentum isn't stopped. People are too invested into the political animus and branch far beyond, so movements unreliant on competency inevitably trend to corruption - unchecked consolidation of power.

    What is the purpose of recognizing privilege? Is there a resulting action from this? If one was to conduct a comparative analysis of successful and unsuccessful individuals and adapt behaviors to better prepare the unsuccessful, then this has potential for good. If used to remove "roadblocks" this has potential for good. Check the system for systemic unfairness - again potential for good. If simply used to fulfill a narcissistic need to justify fantasy and reject reality, then there is no potential for good. If used politically to pit one group against another - while there may be a theoretical potential for good historically this has resulted in starvation and genocide.

    It's also incredibly dishonest (although insidiously brilliant) how binary thought results in very specific recognition of privilege in certain areas while completely ignoring others. Although I suspect this will continue to increase given time as a good majority active seek and promote some manner of how they do are part of a victim class. It is far easier to destroy than create, as such far easier to criticize others than change your behavior.

    There's a foundational flaw in the logic which presumes that man is good and that if the system were to only be tweaked, life would be better. Reality is quite the opposite as your chances of making this worse greatly exceed your chances for improving anything for anyone. Man has an equal capacity for good and evil, but left unchecked trends to evil. The most effective means of mitigating this is serving a higher purpose beyond the individual - beyond generations.

    Another foundational flaw is that of zero sum - that the assets are fixed. The resentful look at whoever they see as having life better and cannot see beyond privilege - skinny genes, high metabolism, etc. The fit did not get so by making the obese, nor did the obese suffer at the hands of the fit. Assets in nearly all systems are variable - they expand and contract - are created and destroyed.

    The fatal flaw in privilege, and this also lies at the heart of postmoderism is the limit of scope. Any hypothesis worth review is taken to extreme to ensure consistency. Privilege is highly scoped by very specific criteria to establish a false narrative to gain political power. Competency for example is a very real privilege. The competent are given increasing challenges while the incompetent are given less. Attractiveness, sex, sexual orientation, gender, age, hair color, eye color, height, weight, epidermal pigmentation, IQ, EQ, culture, race, creed, genetics - carried out infinitesimally this brings us and infinitesimal number of privileges, which brings us inevitably to the individual. No two humans think and act the same every time - and you've once again stumbled into the age of enlightenment. Congratulations! You've discovered what we figured out 300 years ago (which figured out what we knew 2000 years ago).



    So, the bolded sentence isn't using privilege in the way that it is used by most people who think talking about privilege is an important and enlightening thing to do sometimes. To them, privilege is not the inherent genetic characteristic you have (like skinny genes or high metabolism, or even being white or male). Privilege is all the benefits society accords you because you have characteristic, including the privilege of not having to even notice that you get benefits that people who don't have that characteristic don't get.



    Then the correction would be to precisely define privilege and we can effectively debate. The next step would be to review data to verify that preconceived notions are indeed correct.

    This would be acceptable and as you say enlightening if done in review of other key characteristics. If you're only looking at one trait, then as there are an infinite number of ways of viewing things, you have a corresponding chance of reaching an incorrect conclusion.

    Thanks for explaining to me that the correct thing to do would be the thing I literally just did.
  • PWHF
    PWHF Posts: 221 Member
    edited September 2019
    PWHF wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    PWHF wrote: »
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    PWHF wrote: »
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »

    There are a bunch of terms in common parlance that seem to bring out symbol-reactive behavior, and feed polarization. I wish there were ways we could be trying to understand the pictures in each other’s heads, rather than reacting to specific words we use to try to communicate them.

    ^^^This. Communication can be difficult as it is. When terms commonly used by several different people are defined by those people in several different ways communication can stagnate and a war of words breaks out. In my tiny corner of the world experience in the form of walking in the others shoes will always carry more weight than academically learned definitions. An example would be the short account of two young children answering a quiz question that I read about decades ago. 1 child was from a poor family, the other from a wealthy family.

    Question: "What do you place your tea cup on when you put it down?"

    A saucer or the table?

    The poor child said table, the wealthy said saucer. Both are right per their 'learned' experience.

    "Privilege" can be used with positive or negative connotations. It would be nice if that, and other "hot" terms were used as originally intended instead of insults. Having a privilege is not a bad thing.

    100% agree. Also on the polarization thing. I've noticed in myself that I find arguing on the Internet very stimulating and it must be releasing some kind of chemical rush in my brain. I know it's not good for me so I'm going to mindfully and consciously stop doing it. :smiley:

    :D I keep finding myself coming back for more lol. I don't reply often, but do acknowledge I might have a problem :p

    Same here - just another bad habit that needs kicking into touch. My life just seems to be a succession of things I have to stop doing... At least i can enjoy my privilege (for now!)

    Just a mild suggestion: Don't stop. You seem like a smart, decent guy: You should hang around, and join in.

    Learn to recognize that chemical rush you mentioned, and stop before you hit post. Read again, think more, post something less polemical, something that fosters communication or connection.

    There could be a chemical rush from that, too, ya never know. ;)

    Thanks! There is a chemical rush but it's just a lot slower than the instant gratification from drugs/alcohol/sugar/internet drama.. Slowing it all down and regulating the dopamine (is it dopamine) flow seems to be the catch all for all of it.

    What I've noticed is that I get 'triggered' when people use the word privilege to suggest that someone has achieved the results in their life because of privilege when that person in fact has made very touch choices, gone without, swapped instant for delayed gratification and worked very hard to get what they want out of life.

    My observation is that the word privilege has been so badly abused that it's now just an object of ridicule (just watch South Park). What I'm seeing is myself now is a tendency to get triggered which I will work through, in future if I see a thread about body positivity in a diet and fitness forum I'll think 'Yeah that's gonna be a doozy..' and not even open it up.

    That people who disagree with an approach or an idea choose to ridicule it says more about those doing the ridiculing than it does about the idea.

    You're right, it's better to just ignore it than engage with it. When on the receiving end of privilege shaming it's very tempting to push back and 'disagree' - but it's pointless, futile and a waste of time and energy - as I've learnt these last couple of days.

    I think in the case of the South Park creators this whole privilege movement is a gift that just keeps on giving.
  • CSARdiver
    CSARdiver Posts: 6,257 Member
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    These movements grow in roughly the same manner - from a legitimate concern which needs to be reviewed, but once addressed the momentum isn't stopped. People are too invested into the political animus and branch far beyond, so movements unreliant on competency inevitably trend to corruption - unchecked consolidation of power.

    What is the purpose of recognizing privilege? Is there a resulting action from this? If one was to conduct a comparative analysis of successful and unsuccessful individuals and adapt behaviors to better prepare the unsuccessful, then this has potential for good. If used to remove "roadblocks" this has potential for good. Check the system for systemic unfairness - again potential for good. If simply used to fulfill a narcissistic need to justify fantasy and reject reality, then there is no potential for good. If used politically to pit one group against another - while there may be a theoretical potential for good historically this has resulted in starvation and genocide.

    It's also incredibly dishonest (although insidiously brilliant) how binary thought results in very specific recognition of privilege in certain areas while completely ignoring others. Although I suspect this will continue to increase given time as a good majority active seek and promote some manner of how they do are part of a victim class. It is far easier to destroy than create, as such far easier to criticize others than change your behavior.

    There's a foundational flaw in the logic which presumes that man is good and that if the system were to only be tweaked, life would be better. Reality is quite the opposite as your chances of making this worse greatly exceed your chances for improving anything for anyone. Man has an equal capacity for good and evil, but left unchecked trends to evil. The most effective means of mitigating this is serving a higher purpose beyond the individual - beyond generations.

    Another foundational flaw is that of zero sum - that the assets are fixed. The resentful look at whoever they see as having life better and cannot see beyond privilege - skinny genes, high metabolism, etc. The fit did not get so by making the obese, nor did the obese suffer at the hands of the fit. Assets in nearly all systems are variable - they expand and contract - are created and destroyed.

    The fatal flaw in privilege, and this also lies at the heart of postmoderism is the limit of scope. Any hypothesis worth review is taken to extreme to ensure consistency. Privilege is highly scoped by very specific criteria to establish a false narrative to gain political power. Competency for example is a very real privilege. The competent are given increasing challenges while the incompetent are given less. Attractiveness, sex, sexual orientation, gender, age, hair color, eye color, height, weight, epidermal pigmentation, IQ, EQ, culture, race, creed, genetics - carried out infinitesimally this brings us and infinitesimal number of privileges, which brings us inevitably to the individual. No two humans think and act the same every time - and you've once again stumbled into the age of enlightenment. Congratulations! You've discovered what we figured out 300 years ago (which figured out what we knew 2000 years ago).



    So, the bolded sentence isn't using privilege in the way that it is used by most people who think talking about privilege is an important and enlightening thing to do sometimes. To them, privilege is not the inherent genetic characteristic you have (like skinny genes or high metabolism, or even being white or male). Privilege is all the benefits society accords you because you have characteristic, including the privilege of not having to even notice that you get benefits that people who don't have that characteristic don't get.



    Then the correction would be to precisely define privilege and we can effectively debate. The next step would be to review data to verify that preconceived notions are indeed correct.

    This would be acceptable and as you say enlightening if done in review of other key characteristics. If you're only looking at one trait, then as there are an infinite number of ways of viewing things, you have a corresponding chance of reaching an incorrect conclusion.

    Thanks for explaining to me that the correct thing to do would be the thing I literally just did.

    What's the difference then between privilege and competency?

  • PWHF
    PWHF Posts: 221 Member
    PWHF wrote: »
    PWHF wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    PWHF wrote: »
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    PWHF wrote: »
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »

    There are a bunch of terms in common parlance that seem to bring out symbol-reactive behavior, and feed polarization. I wish there were ways we could be trying to understand the pictures in each other’s heads, rather than reacting to specific words we use to try to communicate them.

    ^^^This. Communication can be difficult as it is. When terms commonly used by several different people are defined by those people in several different ways communication can stagnate and a war of words breaks out. In my tiny corner of the world experience in the form of walking in the others shoes will always carry more weight than academically learned definitions. An example would be the short account of two young children answering a quiz question that I read about decades ago. 1 child was from a poor family, the other from a wealthy family.

    Question: "What do you place your tea cup on when you put it down?"

    A saucer or the table?

    The poor child said table, the wealthy said saucer. Both are right per their 'learned' experience.

    "Privilege" can be used with positive or negative connotations. It would be nice if that, and other "hot" terms were used as originally intended instead of insults. Having a privilege is not a bad thing.

    100% agree. Also on the polarization thing. I've noticed in myself that I find arguing on the Internet very stimulating and it must be releasing some kind of chemical rush in my brain. I know it's not good for me so I'm going to mindfully and consciously stop doing it. :smiley:

    :D I keep finding myself coming back for more lol. I don't reply often, but do acknowledge I might have a problem :p

    Same here - just another bad habit that needs kicking into touch. My life just seems to be a succession of things I have to stop doing... At least i can enjoy my privilege (for now!)

    Just a mild suggestion: Don't stop. You seem like a smart, decent guy: You should hang around, and join in.

    Learn to recognize that chemical rush you mentioned, and stop before you hit post. Read again, think more, post something less polemical, something that fosters communication or connection.

    There could be a chemical rush from that, too, ya never know. ;)

    Thanks! There is a chemical rush but it's just a lot slower than the instant gratification from drugs/alcohol/sugar/internet drama.. Slowing it all down and regulating the dopamine (is it dopamine) flow seems to be the catch all for all of it.

    What I've noticed is that I get 'triggered' when people use the word privilege to suggest that someone has achieved the results in their life because of privilege when that person in fact has made very touch choices, gone without, swapped instant for delayed gratification and worked very hard to get what they want out of life.

    My observation is that the word privilege has been so badly abused that it's now just an object of ridicule (just watch South Park). What I'm seeing is myself now is a tendency to get triggered which I will work through, in future if I see a thread about body positivity in a diet and fitness forum I'll think 'Yeah that's gonna be a doozy..' and not even open it up.

    That people who disagree with an approach or an idea choose to ridicule it says more about those doing the ridiculing than it does about the idea.

    You're right, it's better to just ignore it than engage with it. When on the receiving end of privilege shaming it's very tempting to push back and 'disagree' - but it's pointless, futile and a waste of time and energy - as I've learnt these last couple of days.

    I think in the case of the South Park creators this whole privilege movement is a gift that just keeps on giving.

    Problem is the amount of people engaging with the South Park version of an idea.
    There are plenty of people that acknowledge privilege and at the same time understand thermodynamics also applies to body composition.
    The point is to say the personal economics are not the same for any two people. To think that everyone's opportunity cost is the same is to deny economic specialization. Like go ahead and mock privilege, but tell me do you hold to the logically equivalent claim that you could just grow your own apples as easily as the farmer? Surely the difficulty is the exact same...

    Why do you think that is? I don't think it's the concept of privilege itself - it's aimed more at the people 'calling out' other people's privilege. That's just my observation, I could be wrong.
  • CSARdiver
    CSARdiver Posts: 6,257 Member
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    These movements grow in roughly the same manner - from a legitimate concern which needs to be reviewed, but once addressed the momentum isn't stopped. People are too invested into the political animus and branch far beyond, so movements unreliant on competency inevitably trend to corruption - unchecked consolidation of power.

    What is the purpose of recognizing privilege? Is there a resulting action from this? If one was to conduct a comparative analysis of successful and unsuccessful individuals and adapt behaviors to better prepare the unsuccessful, then this has potential for good. If used to remove "roadblocks" this has potential for good. Check the system for systemic unfairness - again potential for good. If simply used to fulfill a narcissistic need to justify fantasy and reject reality, then there is no potential for good. If used politically to pit one group against another - while there may be a theoretical potential for good historically this has resulted in starvation and genocide.

    It's also incredibly dishonest (although insidiously brilliant) how binary thought results in very specific recognition of privilege in certain areas while completely ignoring others. Although I suspect this will continue to increase given time as a good majority active seek and promote some manner of how they do are part of a victim class. It is far easier to destroy than create, as such far easier to criticize others than change your behavior.

    There's a foundational flaw in the logic which presumes that man is good and that if the system were to only be tweaked, life would be better. Reality is quite the opposite as your chances of making this worse greatly exceed your chances for improving anything for anyone. Man has an equal capacity for good and evil, but left unchecked trends to evil. The most effective means of mitigating this is serving a higher purpose beyond the individual - beyond generations.

    Another foundational flaw is that of zero sum - that the assets are fixed. The resentful look at whoever they see as having life better and cannot see beyond privilege - skinny genes, high metabolism, etc. The fit did not get so by making the obese, nor did the obese suffer at the hands of the fit. Assets in nearly all systems are variable - they expand and contract - are created and destroyed.

    The fatal flaw in privilege, and this also lies at the heart of postmoderism is the limit of scope. Any hypothesis worth review is taken to extreme to ensure consistency. Privilege is highly scoped by very specific criteria to establish a false narrative to gain political power. Competency for example is a very real privilege. The competent are given increasing challenges while the incompetent are given less. Attractiveness, sex, sexual orientation, gender, age, hair color, eye color, height, weight, epidermal pigmentation, IQ, EQ, culture, race, creed, genetics - carried out infinitesimally this brings us and infinitesimal number of privileges, which brings us inevitably to the individual. No two humans think and act the same every time - and you've once again stumbled into the age of enlightenment. Congratulations! You've discovered what we figured out 300 years ago (which figured out what we knew 2000 years ago).



    So, the bolded sentence isn't using privilege in the way that it is used by most people who think talking about privilege is an important and enlightening thing to do sometimes. To them, privilege is not the inherent genetic characteristic you have (like skinny genes or high metabolism, or even being white or male). Privilege is all the benefits society accords you because you have characteristic, including the privilege of not having to even notice that you get benefits that people who don't have that characteristic don't get.



    Then the correction would be to precisely define privilege and we can effectively debate. The next step would be to review data to verify that preconceived notions are indeed correct.

    This would be acceptable and as you say enlightening if done in review of other key characteristics. If you're only looking at one trait, then as there are an infinite number of ways of viewing things, you have a corresponding chance of reaching an incorrect conclusion.

    Thanks for explaining to me that the correct thing to do would be the thing I literally just did.

    What's the difference then between privilege and competency?

    From my earlier post that you responded to by saying the correct thing to do would be to define privilege:
    privilege is not the inherent genetic characteristic you have (like skinny genes or high metabolism, or even being white or male). Privilege is all the benefits society accords you because you have characteristic, including the privilege of not having to even notice that you get benefits that people who don't have that characteristic don't get.

    Privilege is also not competency. If you gained that competency through avenues not open to everyone because of their inherent characteristics, socioeconomic status, or religion (or other things that it would be unreasonable to demand they give up to try to obtain access to those avenues), competency might be a reflection of privilege. Again, privilege is all the benefits society accords you because you have a characteristic, it is not the characteristic itself.

    Maybe a concrete example would help. Let's say that in a particular society, certain professions and the academic paths to those professions are barred or extremely restricted (legally or de facto) to certain people based on race, religion, gender, etc. Let's say that people in those professions then find that they are accorded favorable treatment in situations that are not directly related to their profession (obtaining loans on favorable terms, for example, because the lending officers steer people in the trades to higher interest or balloon loans), regardless of their credit (and this is not a hypothetical example). The ability of the people in those professions to draw blood or draw up a contract (or whatever their competence may be) is not their privilege. Their privilege is how other people treat them.

    The fundamental issue is lack of an agreed upon definition, so until then it remains a nebulous term similar to "healthy". We also have to specifically state the intended outcome of this to ensure it is just. Proponents of the movement have already determined that the outcome is favorable, but this has yet to be scrutinized or thought through the next step. What then is the counter to this movement?

    Privilege is a symptom of something deeper - a root cause. So just as in weight management addressing a symptom such as eating healthy, which neglecting the root cause of caloric surplus, serves nothing. Competency is closer to a potential root cause.

    A concrete, and real example, would certainly help. Is there currently a specific profession or academic path which deliberately excludes based upon race, religion, gender, ideology, etc.?

    This would be in direct violation of existing law, so then one would have to ask, why? Then examine that individual or group of individuals.
  • CSARdiver
    CSARdiver Posts: 6,257 Member
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    These movements grow in roughly the same manner - from a legitimate concern which needs to be reviewed, but once addressed the momentum isn't stopped. People are too invested into the political animus and branch far beyond, so movements unreliant on competency inevitably trend to corruption - unchecked consolidation of power.

    What is the purpose of recognizing privilege? Is there a resulting action from this? If one was to conduct a comparative analysis of successful and unsuccessful individuals and adapt behaviors to better prepare the unsuccessful, then this has potential for good. If used to remove "roadblocks" this has potential for good. Check the system for systemic unfairness - again potential for good. If simply used to fulfill a narcissistic need to justify fantasy and reject reality, then there is no potential for good. If used politically to pit one group against another - while there may be a theoretical potential for good historically this has resulted in starvation and genocide.

    It's also incredibly dishonest (although insidiously brilliant) how binary thought results in very specific recognition of privilege in certain areas while completely ignoring others. Although I suspect this will continue to increase given time as a good majority active seek and promote some manner of how they do are part of a victim class. It is far easier to destroy than create, as such far easier to criticize others than change your behavior.

    There's a foundational flaw in the logic which presumes that man is good and that if the system were to only be tweaked, life would be better. Reality is quite the opposite as your chances of making this worse greatly exceed your chances for improving anything for anyone. Man has an equal capacity for good and evil, but left unchecked trends to evil. The most effective means of mitigating this is serving a higher purpose beyond the individual - beyond generations.

    Another foundational flaw is that of zero sum - that the assets are fixed. The resentful look at whoever they see as having life better and cannot see beyond privilege - skinny genes, high metabolism, etc. The fit did not get so by making the obese, nor did the obese suffer at the hands of the fit. Assets in nearly all systems are variable - they expand and contract - are created and destroyed.

    The fatal flaw in privilege, and this also lies at the heart of postmoderism is the limit of scope. Any hypothesis worth review is taken to extreme to ensure consistency. Privilege is highly scoped by very specific criteria to establish a false narrative to gain political power. Competency for example is a very real privilege. The competent are given increasing challenges while the incompetent are given less. Attractiveness, sex, sexual orientation, gender, age, hair color, eye color, height, weight, epidermal pigmentation, IQ, EQ, culture, race, creed, genetics - carried out infinitesimally this brings us and infinitesimal number of privileges, which brings us inevitably to the individual. No two humans think and act the same every time - and you've once again stumbled into the age of enlightenment. Congratulations! You've discovered what we figured out 300 years ago (which figured out what we knew 2000 years ago).



    So, the bolded sentence isn't using privilege in the way that it is used by most people who think talking about privilege is an important and enlightening thing to do sometimes. To them, privilege is not the inherent genetic characteristic you have (like skinny genes or high metabolism, or even being white or male). Privilege is all the benefits society accords you because you have characteristic, including the privilege of not having to even notice that you get benefits that people who don't have that characteristic don't get.



    Then the correction would be to precisely define privilege and we can effectively debate. The next step would be to review data to verify that preconceived notions are indeed correct.

    This would be acceptable and as you say enlightening if done in review of other key characteristics. If you're only looking at one trait, then as there are an infinite number of ways of viewing things, you have a corresponding chance of reaching an incorrect conclusion.

    Thanks for explaining to me that the correct thing to do would be the thing I literally just did.

    What's the difference then between privilege and competency?

    From my earlier post that you responded to by saying the correct thing to do would be to define privilege:
    privilege is not the inherent genetic characteristic you have (like skinny genes or high metabolism, or even being white or male). Privilege is all the benefits society accords you because you have characteristic, including the privilege of not having to even notice that you get benefits that people who don't have that characteristic don't get.

    Privilege is also not competency. If you gained that competency through avenues not open to everyone because of their inherent characteristics, socioeconomic status, or religion (or other things that it would be unreasonable to demand they give up to try to obtain access to those avenues), competency might be a reflection of privilege. Again, privilege is all the benefits society accords you because you have a characteristic, it is not the characteristic itself.

    Maybe a concrete example would help. Let's say that in a particular society, certain professions and the academic paths to those professions are barred or extremely restricted (legally or de facto) to certain people based on race, religion, gender, etc. Let's say that people in those professions then find that they are accorded favorable treatment in situations that are not directly related to their profession (obtaining loans on favorable terms, for example, because the lending officers steer people in the trades to higher interest or balloon loans), regardless of their credit (and this is not a hypothetical example). The ability of the people in those professions to draw blood or draw up a contract (or whatever their competence may be) is not their privilege. Their privilege is how other people treat them.

    The fundamental issue is lack of an agreed upon definition, so until then it remains a nebulous term similar to "healthy". We also have to specifically state the intended outcome of this to ensure it is just. Proponents of the movement have already determined that the outcome is favorable, but this has yet to be scrutinized or thought through the next step. What then is the counter to this movement?

    Privilege is a symptom of something deeper - a root cause. So just as in weight management addressing a symptom such as eating healthy, which neglecting the root cause of caloric surplus, serves nothing. Competency is closer to a potential root cause.

    A concrete, and real example, would certainly help. Is there currently a specific profession or academic path which deliberately excludes based upon race, religion, gender, ideology, etc.?

    This would be in direct violation of existing law, so then one would have to ask, why? Then examine that individual or group of individuals.

    lynn_glenmont literally gave you a definition: "Again, privilege is all the benefits society accords you because you have a characteristic, it is not the characteristic itself."
    If you disagree with that definition, you're just talking past her in your argument. I actually think you're the one trying to avoid it having a definition because it is far easier to debate something nebulous doesn't exist than to argue against something that obviously happens - certain people are treated differently for just having certain characteristics.

    We have to state the intended outcome of what? Are you saying privilege means society has to do something about it? That's jumping the gun when you're trying to hold that it doesn't exist first. It is a fallacious is-ought. Privilege could exist and we could have different concepts of justice that say it isn't on society to address them.

    Then let's test that specific definition - noting that we are then rejecting the formal definition. How then is privilege measured? Seems to be a completely subjective system of measurement.

    As example - Prior to learning about CICO how many people on MFP believed that those successful in managing their weight was due to some manner of unearned privilege? Is it true?

    What is the intended outcome of privilege? Is it simply for those so judged with privilege to apologize and atone? Seems a massive waste of effort without an end goal.