This line jumped out at me from the New York Times article on the Fatosphere:
The Big Fat Deal blog (bfdblog.com) suggests 10 ways to be a “body positivity activist,” including “Be yourself,” “Understand that a lot of people are hateful morons” and “Don’t be afraid to order the cheesecake.”
All the things one doesn't know about living another person's life . . . I mean, having lived in New York for thirty years, I'm sure that there were any number of mosquito-women staring at my size 10 frame and thinking "That's what would happen to me if I hoovered down ice cream like that." But at least I didn't know it.
Nothing says positivity like "other people are hateful morons," that's for sure.
John Thacker, that doesn't even touch the surface of how hateful those sites are. And good luck getting anyone to respond to the question, "If it's not OK to have an aesthetic preference for fit bodies, why is it ok to have one for acne-free faces or male heads with hair or a MAC-counter's-worth full of make-up (the fat women of these blogs reallly like their make-up)?"
One the one hand, some people have a lot of trouble losing weight. For those who are naturally thin, it's probably hard to understand how someone can still be hungry even after eating a full meal. Accepting that fat people may not have a character flaw or moral failing is a good thing.
On the other hand, being really, really fat is bad. It may be okay to be overweight and in reasonable shape, but it's better to eat moderate amounts of healthy food and get some exercise. And if you do, you probably won't be obese unless you have a serious metabolic problem.
On the gripping hand, the weight charts I've seen define "obese" at a weight where people often look relatively normal and have no apparent weight-related difficulties. I'm not sure how these charts would define people that I would consider obese... is there a word for super-duper obese? According to the weight charts, I'm tremendously obese and have been for most of my life... yet I can run, jump, climb, etc. It's kind of disheartening to know that even if I get down to the weight I was when I was in high school playing football, I'd still be considered "obese" by the weight charts. If I got down to my ideal weight, people would probably try to call me an ambulance or give me a stick of butter...
Fat acceptance is a good thing... fat advocacy, I think is not so good.
Earnest, those height/weight charts are often compiled by life insurance companies. If you rate as overweight, they increase your premiums, so they've got an incentive to classify you as overweight.
EI, the term is "morbidly obese".
Avram, do you really think insurance companies are that profit-adverse? If, according to your theory, one company unfairly labels someone obese to increase their premium, then any other smart company will undercut to secure that customer. Insurance company research departments spend their days trying to figure out what segment other companies are over-charging so that they can steal away the business. I know that truth cuts into fat pity, but there it is.
I am with you Earnest. I am 6'3" and usually between 215 and 225 and have been that size since high school.
The charts say that I should be less than 200 pounds at the maximum and as low as like 160.
I have occasionally gotten down to the 190 range with serious dieting and exercise and whenever I get there people are generally worried about me, my face is sunken and my family and friends encourage me to eat more.
Where the charts say my weight should be 200 max, I have generally come to the conclusion that somewher in the 200-210 range is the optimum weight for me. I think the charts set an unrealistic standard and acturally disourage people instead of motivating them to loose weight.
I don't know how they wre developed, but they seem off to me.
If it's not OK to have an aesthetic preference for fit bodies
It's perfectly OK to have an aesthetic preference for thin bodies. What's not OK is to mistreat people who don't turn you, personally, on. Or people whom you consider ugly. Or people who most others would consider ugly. Mistreating people because you don't like the way they look is not behavior that anyone should accept.
Not all that complicated.
It's perfectly OK to have an aesthetic preference for thin bodies.
Clearly you haven't spent much time in the "fatosphere".
The problem with some of these "fat activists" is the same as my problem with lots of fundamentalists that claim to represent my interests--they make the rest of us look bad.
Sensible fat person's thoughts:
"I understand that most people have an aesthetic preference for thin or well muscled bodies. There are ways I could become thin, but they tend to be exceedingly unpleasant and require near starvation given my metabolism--on a similar level of unpleasantness as expecting a gay man to go without sex for life. You shouldn't treat people like crap for being gay; don't treat me like crap, especially in areas where my weight is irrelevant, because I'm fat."
Crazy fat activist's thoughts:
"I'm 350 lbs. and I'm gorgeous! Men/women should be falling all over me in speechless lust! Anyone who doesn't is a hateful moron!"
The NYT article unfortunately conflates the two types--the debunking of a lot of the "obese people are an unhealthy drain on society's resources" idiocy is very useful, and there are frankly far too many people who treat being fat as a moral failing rather than a medical condition that for many isn't easy to escape from.
For starters, most of those height/weight and BMI charts are a load of crap...approximations of something very difficult to quantify. By the charts and BMI I am considered obese...but my actual bodyfat percentage is a very healthy 15%. All this means is that I have a thick muscular frame and short legs that throw my body proportions out of whack.
Megan, I've never seen a picture of you, but I recall reading that you are very tall...and a 10 dress size is far from huge...unless you're a LA/Hollywood stick girl actress.
Finally, I've known more than a few really fat people [been one myself in fact...250lb on a 5'10" frame], and IMHO the whole 'metabolic disorder' thing is a load of crap too, 99 times out of a hundred. The vast majority of fat people get that way by being inactive and eating far too much over a long period of time. It's EASY to eat 500 to 1000 calories a day too much and it's also very easy to plunk yourself down in front of a TV or computer for an entire evening.
Being fat is a sign of laziness, self-deception and plain bad character. That's why why we don't like fat people. Of course, being too thin or an obsessive gym rat is a sign of serious problems too...it's just that we have been conned by media images into thinking this is an ideal. But that's another blog entry, perhaps.
It's EASY to eat 500 to 1000 calories a day too much and it's also very easy to plunk yourself down in front of a TV or computer for an entire evening...Being fat is a sign of laziness, self-deception and plain bad character. That's why why we don't like fat people.
And what exactly is wrong with that? Is there something grossly immoral about watching TV? Eating a donut? Is someone else getting hurt?
Of course these sites are gaining traction. People spout the sort of idiocy that makes being fat akin to being a drug addict or a pathological liar, and of course reasonable people should take offense.
What I have not heard is why I am suppose to accept fat people when they cost businesses and our health care systems money in terms of lost productivity, sick days, and medications to control the numerous health problems they develop in middle-age.
I would like to see a study about the rise in the percentage of overweight adults as a result of medical advances keeping them alive when in times past, they would have bit it between ages 45 - 55?
is there a word for super-duper obese?
I've seen many people who are what can only be described as "Wal-Mart Fat". These are the ones who have to ride those motorized shopping carts because they are too fat to walk.
Wow, David...
I have talked to many thin people and most of them enjoy exercise and/or eat loads of crap food and just don't gain weight or just aren't hungry very often and get full easily. They don't maintain their thin figure through will power and virtuous living.
I have a very busy schedule with two kids and find making time to exercise difficult. I should do so anyway, but even when I exercise regularly, the pounds don't drop off.
As far as food goes, I love sweet and starchy foods and am hungry all the time, even after I've eaten. To moderate my food intake, I have to actually deny my hunger a lot of the time. While it is good for me to do so, it's a lot harder to fight constant cravings for food than to not eat because I'm just not interested.
There's no virture in having a very small appetite and not eating much. That's just lucky genes. There's no virture in having the ability to eat a lot of food and stay thin. That's also just lucky genes.
I'm not asking anyone to pity me and if my insurance company wants to charge me more for being overweight, I wouldn't like it, but I would understand. On the other hand, I get really sick of people who don't have any trouble staying thin judging me. At least alcoholics can go cold turkey... going cold turkey on food isn't really an option.
EI
Don't hate me because I'm fat. Get to know me and I'm sure you'll find a much better reason.
David's comments are EXACTLY why those fat sites are so popular: "Being fat is a sign of laziness, self-deception and plain bad character."
Give me a break!
grumpy realist,
Sorry, no break. The NYT story basically confirms this. I think calling it "bad character" is a bit excessive, but the basic fact is that most fat people are fat because of their lifestyle. And there's an awful lot of rationalizing and self-deception going on ("I can't help it! It's my metabolism!").
So, Mixner, you're saying that everyone has the same metabolism and it has no significant effect on weight?
For those who don't have this problem, imagine being an alcoholic, where drinking alcohol makes you feel really good. Now imagine that you are required to go to a bar and have a drink one day a week. How easy would it be for you to limit your drinking? How many alcoholics would end up drinking to excess?
Apetite and metabolism have a huge effect on weight and while it's true that some fat people are lazy or don't care, others have a much harder time losing weight than people who are naturally thin.
I'm trying to lose weight. I don't blame anyone else for my problem. But it's very difficult for me to lose weight. I have to severely restrict my food intake and exercise a lot. And even then weight loss is slow. It's a very unpleasant experience. I KNOW that many thin people don't have a problem keeping their weight down. They're not virtuous and noble and self-sacrificing. They're lucky.
No, I'm saying that for most fat people the basic reason they're fat is their lifestyle. That doesn't mean differences in metabolism play no role in differences in weight or that it's equally easy/hard for everyone to stay at a healthy weight. But lifestyle is the key factor. To quote the NYT piece:
Personally, I blame George Bush.
On a less juvenile note, BMI is not a particularly ingenious or complex measurement.
It is simply (Your Mass in KG)/((Your Height in cm)^2).
It's supposed to be a useful shorthand for your doctor to determine whether you need to be tested for Type 2 diabetes and various heart ailments. It is not a magic quantification of "fatness".
Correction:
BMI = (Your Mass in KG)/((Your Height in Meters)^2).
The other would be off by a factor of 10,000, and I apologize for the extra babble, but I needed a longer post to get the correction past the spambot.
Mixner - you may think metabolism has nothing to do with it, but you oughtta try living with what gastric surgery did to mine.
I lost my hair, I had the energy of a tired slug, and GAINED WEIGHT on 750 calories a day.
Fortunately, the surgery I had was the "old" kind and it's pretty much reversed itself over the last 20 years. I'm healthier because I can now eat.
I'm still fat. But I don't care. Surgeries and diets all screw up one's metabolism and that ain't something we oughtta mess with. BTW, anorexics and bulimics have very similar problems.
An ideal weight is an individual thing, it's not something that can be measured in bulk. Pun intended.
If you didn't want to perform fancy tests, you could measure a person's height above the ground. Those that scored at least 2 feet could be classed as Alive, those 0 to 2 feet as Marginal/Asleep, and those less than zero as Dead. A chart that determines ideal weight based only on height has similar limitations, but it's an easy test to perform.