I believe things are headed in the right direction with more emphasis on health and measures such as the removal of soda in schools.
I’m not sure how effective it will be to tackle obesity from the supply side. I do think this could be a plausible aspect of a larger solution in cases where food or drink is consumed because it is conveniently available. But look at what you’d be doing: Instead of teaching people to give more thought to the matter, you would effectively be protecting them from themselves by removing the opportunity for poor judgment. You have lately come to appreciate the concept of willpower; how can people build willpower when we as a society are preventing them from having to address their own issues?
I don’t want the human species to be “saved from itself” as though it can’t handle the choice of whether to drink a soda. That’s preposterous. To the extent that soda consumption is a problem--and I don’t think it is; I think it’s a symptom of a different problem; but, even entertaining your premise for the moment—I believe the best solution is to inspire children (and to a lesser extent adults) to want to choose wisely when it comes to their consumption patterns. Of course, I grant how unrealistic that is due to the fact that most people are not very judicious in their discretions, and so I do cede that a certain amount of social intervention is inevitable. But I would hope to keep
that sort of governmental interference to a minimum.
Now, all of this has been said while humoring the assumption that obesity is something to be minimized at all costs, as if being fat is innately bad. In fact, I believe the whole purpose of this article was to question the absoluteness of that premise. I’m not going to argue that being fat doesn’t increase one’s risk of health problems, because at least some of the time it does—which, compared with obesity’s relatively few positive benefits to health, translates on the statistical level to an undesirable condition. But I do want to say that being healthy is not the preeminent reason for living, and if we lived life as risk-free as possible, it’d be a rather dull existence. Therefore, where the issue of excessive weight is concerned, it also becomes important to consider the
benefit that some people find in living a lifestyle that results in them being fat. Your post ignores this detail completely. I want people to reconsider their prejudice that fatness as an unqualified bad.
As for the health realm, that’s a different issue. It is okay to be somewhat fat if you regularly exercise; that’s no problem at all. But most fat people are associated with a totally sedentary lifestyle.
I think this is one of your more insightful remarks thus far, but nevertheless you are still conflating causation with correlation. If fat people are “associated” with a sedentary lifestyle, then, as regards the question of health problems in this segment of the population, how many of these health problems are actually the result of the fatness itself, rather than something else like poor exercise habits?
I took a health & wellness class at my university out of sheer interest in the scientific side of things. You know, you get tired of hearing about the workout routines of others or the supposed science of it -- and this class cuts through it with pure, verified, and ongoing medical research.
This tone of conviction betrays some misunderstanding on your part of the authority of science. “Pure, verified, and ongoing medical research” may lead to some persuasive conclusions, but of a narrower sort than you are acknowledging. Scientific truth is an empirical thing. If you look more closely, you would be hard-pressed to find a study that concludes something as generalized as “being fat is bad for you,” because a statement that broad requires an incredible amount of work to verify empirically. Among other reasons, that’s because “being fat” may be a clear-cut concept superficially, but the underlying physiology and psychology of it is exquisitely complicated. Scientific studies will often demonstrate, for instance, a correlation between obesity and heart disease. Okay. But you can’t jump from a specific statement like that to the general one that being fat is bad for you.
Most research of which I am aware has been inspired the same bias that you do: “Being fat is bad, duh, but how do we prove it?” And yet the science has not been so forthcoming with such a proof. Instead, I believe what we will ultimately find is that “being fat” is too broad a concept to make meaningful statements of fact, and instead focus on the various aspects of fatness, either correlative or directly resultant, that do indeed contribute to health risks. To put it another way, I believe that tomorrow’s medicine will be able to eliminate a great many of the health risks of being fat, without actually doing away with the fatness itself.
The rub here is that beyond a certain level, obesity is definitely a health issue that will cut life short. This is outside the realm of being chunky; I’m speaking of bad fat. Adipose tissue and deteriorating internal systems open up the body to a cocktail of disease and complication.
Agreed. Excess weight, regardless of whether or not it has any other adverse effects, will physically overwhelm the body when taken to a sufficient excess. If you’ve got a heart optimized for 150 pounds that is forced to pump blood for 600 pounds, you’re asking for trouble.
So I would advise everyone to try and get some kind of exercise in. I fail most of the time because I hate wasting time driving to and from a gym; I hope to get a treadmill in the future.
You don’t need to drive to the gym to exercise. That is typical American cultural idiocy at work for you to even be thinking of exercise as a product to be consumed. Exercise occurs on demand; no fancy equipment required. But if you do want to buy something, buy a nice bicycle, or some hiking equipment, or a racquet. My two favorite sports are biking and backpacking, and either can be done from out my front door. Racquet sports I also enjoy, and truth be told you really only need a garage door and a driveway to get the basic experience. (Admittedly, you’ll spend some money on tennis balls and tennis shoes.)
I would find it hard to believe that the Great ZeaLitY, student of the wisdom of Bruce Lee, would be deterred from getting the amount of exercise he feels is appropriate…simply because it would require a drive to some grandiose gymnasium.
Then come a whole host of positive benefits. Your circulatory system works well, allowing more intense activity. Studies show that exercise improves cognition, in turn reducing depression and allowing clearer thinking. It helps one go to sleep at night more naturally, and has shown to possibly increase memory retention. But rather than rattle off the whole list, I would contend that its greatest benefit is a massive sense of self-efficacy. Exercising is totally a matter of self-will. Your internal fortitude and conscious effort alone determine whether you exercise and how far you go once you’re there. As it gets down to the line, it is you calling the shots.
Here you have gone off on a tangent, but it’s good stuff so I’m giving you props anyway.
But yeah, Lord J, I've often wondered why I'd think in a bit of a prejudiced manner. I'm fully aware of the fact of skinny/fat attractiveness being a product of culture. I admit it does bug me a bit that I can't seem to get myself over thinking like that. But I guess that was the point of your making this subject, wasn't it? So, honestly, I know I'm prejudiced in this regard. Not as much as some - I put at least an equal weight in character and personality, and in fact would probably be a little creeped out by someone being too thin - but it does exist as one of those inborn responses that one tries to rationally resist.
That last line is of particular interest to me. However, my curiosity would be off-topic, so I won’t pursue it in detail here. But I will say that, from what I have seen of your writings on the Compendium, rationality is a concept you perceive differently than I do. It seems to me that for you the embrace of cold reason is a necessarily evil at best, useful only in moderation against other, greater evils—such as the prejudice you mention—but that more often, rational thinking and rational perceptions are a vehicle for all manner of character failings, from hubris to deceit. If I recall correctly, you had a big say in the character development of King Zeal for
Crimson Echoes, and I distinctly recall you making the Faustian analogy of him during the course of those efforts.
What contrast to my own reverence for the human faculties of reason! I think they are the fundamental ingredient of our humanity.
I suppose my comment on ideal being 130-160 is because it is in my own weight category, as it were. In the same way that I'd prefer someone of similar interests and intelligence (and I've heard it said that opposities attract, but I don't believe it), I prefer someone much more like me. I'd be just as reluctant to consider someone whose character strikes me as being shallow. That said, I can't say any of these things with absolute certainty, as chance can have a strange way with some thing. But you said ideal, so that's why I was thinking in that way.
Fair enough! And I think you’re right that “birds of a feather…” is a more apt description of successful human relationships than “opposites attract.” I know something of seeking myself in others. Yes, I do indeed know about that.
Tsk, tsk Josh. First I need to comment on your form on two points (although they are related). First, your poll is an invalid one, that is, you cannot draw meaningful results. Say I put down 140lbs, as the woman I find most attractive in my life weighs near that. Then you put 160, for the same reason. You then leap and say "Ah ha, Radical_Dreamer, you are part of the problem!" But the question of weight does not give the whole picture of fatness. If I am thinking of a woman who is 5'5" and you are thinking of a woman who is 5'8", neither of us is thinking of a woman who is particularly fat or particularuly thin.
If you review the poll, you will notice that 5’8” is the specified height. To answer for a woman standing 5’6” would be to answer a question that the poll does not ask.
I picked 5’8” as the number because I saw it as a compromise between my own preference for tall women and nearly everybody else’s preference for shorter ones—and also out of hope that women will eventually close the height gap between men. (I never do anything without putting at least some thought into it…)
Josh downplayed this, but yes, there are health problems that come with obesity, for example, diabetes. When I am looking for a partner, I want someone who is healthy. Obesity in my mind conjures health problems…
Ah, but that’s the prejudice against fatness. Just because fatness, in your mind, “conjures health problems,” doesn’t have anything to do with whether or not this is actually true in the real world. That’s the very crux of what a prejudice is! Perhaps, rather than ruling so many wonderful women out of your life because of it, a broadening of the mind is in order.
That said, while I will not date a woman who is too fat or too skinny, though I have dated women who were both a bit over and under weight for their height, I do not think good will come of openly mocking these people.
That’s why you’re one of the good ones. Even when disposed to a prejudice, you would have no desire to prosecute its targets with the malice that others would. However, to a certain extent you will always victimize others, so long as prejudices continue to have a place in your view of the world even after you would acknowledge their invalidity. And whether this victimization is hostile or not, it still interferes with other people’s lives—if for no other reason than that you behave differently toward them, in the most neutral sense of the word.
It can be as simple as giving an inappropriate glance to a fat person in the grocery store riding in one of those wheelchairs, as if the act of buying food when you are fat is somehow worse than buying the same food when you are not.
My vote is to let people live with the consequences of their actions. Too a large degree, weight is an issue of choice, via lifestyle. If I stopped walking, I'd gain weight. If I cut back on the candy, I'd lose weight. People need to just be responsible for their own actions, diet included.
That’s the libertarian in you. But I do not fully agree. Somewhere in between ZeaLitY’s police state where soda is a banned substance and your laissez-faire “Idahotopia” where fools and the weak are allowed to suffer and die because of their own ineptitude, is a solution that allows people to accumulate weight as they desire, but does not make it likely that such a lifestyle could occur through indifference or duress by lack of means.
The reason I'm concerned about "the prejudices people have about overweight people," as you put it, is not because I worry about being a target myself--you should know by now that I have no interest in winning the approval of petty people--but rather because the prejudice itself is just so darn...well...wrong.
True enough as it may be that you have no interest in "winning the approval of petty people," most people for the most part still worry to some extent how others view them or percieve them as being.
Ah, but I already addressed this:
But, as to your proposal: No, I am not worried about being discriminated against in the future. I certainly don't relish the prospect of it, but in absolute terms I just don't care as much about social posturing as many people do. The people whose esteem I covet are not likely to lose their respect of me for putting on a layer of fat.
I would likely not appreciate the anti-fat discrimination directed at me. But that doesn’t translate to me writing this article. It is the prejudice itself, and the ghastly effects it has on people, which has compelled me in this case.
Look at it by way of analogy: Of all the prejudices in the world, sexism is the one I find most offensive. I am always on the edge of a tempest when the issue comes up in discussion. Indeed, in this topic I have exercised great self-restraint in encouraging the discussion of everybody’s sexual attitudes towards women’s weight, and herein we have already witnessed a significant number of sexist opinions, paradigms, and phrases. In general I would not suffer that sort of thing; I would call people on their bullshit.
But do I do this—do I so loathe sexism—because I fear of someday becoming a woman? No, that’s ridiculous and obviously not true. I loathe sexism because it’s
wrong.
And that’s why I am writing about anti-fat bigotry here. My personal opinions on fatness help me to take notice of this issue, but they had no bearing on my deciding to write this article.
Now, what does "straight and white" have to do with the rest of your sentence? What does it have to do with anything? Maybe you have some other prejudices to work out, too.
"Straight and white" mainly in the context that assuming you are straight, white and male, I also assume that you do not necessarily deal with the amount of prejudice that certain other people might. … [A]s such, I also take in an assumption that possibly you yourself have never, or at least very very rarely, experienced any extreme discrimination.
I know something about being discriminated against. I was a very bright and quirky child, and I never fit in with my peers particularly well. Your assumption…is wrong.
Study: More Americans too fat for X-rays, scans
Lose some fucking weight America.
Ever the pithy wit, you are. I saw that article earlier this week; it obviously garnered laughs all over the nation—although probably not so many among those people who have suffered from such an experience.
I shouldn’t have to say this, but if it would help: When a machine does not serve a human being, you improve the
machine…not the human. Your imperative contains an accusation which is rooted in the same sort of prejudice that inspired this topic.
If I said I don't find black people or white people or any sort of race attractive, most people would call me racist. How is that racist? It is actually the reverse; the person who would call me racist would be the racist, because they are judging that person by race.
You lost your logic line somewhere in there. Judging a person who judges a person by race, as racist, is not racist. (I dare you to read that sentence aloud.) Your statement is sort of a gibberish.
Study: More Americans too fat for X-rays, scans
I read that title and laughed like hell.
Ah, just as I was telling Ramsus. We didn’t even need to go outside this topic. I sure hope those who care to read this post of mine will reconsider the integrity of those who take such naïve pleasure in other people’s misfortune.
I am someone who hates prejudices, and I nearly always tell someone, whoever it is, teacher, parent, friend or whatever, if they make a prejudiced remark, they suck(this is dangerous, though).
Maybe telling people that “they suck” isn’t the best way to move toward the ultimate aim of eliminating a given prejudice. That can be a part of the solution, but more important is raising awareness, and pointing out the logical inconsistency of people’s opinions and behaviors—without necessarily passing a judgment on them. I have had plenty of practice at being judgmental, and I can tell you that it rarely accomplishes anything productive in terms of getting people to change their minds.
You are certainly wise to take action. All else being equal, allowing injustice to persist when you have an opportunity to diminish it, is not honorable. The next step, after resolving to do
something, is to do what’s
best.
Is there a real difference between prejudices? Sure, the "reason", but all in all, it's all the same: judging bad about a group in generel, and since we are all supossed to be individuals(even if most more behave like only following the herd), we should know better.
Your point is well-taken, but in fact I
do believe that not all prejudices are equal. It depends on how you define the word. For instance, I would consider myself prejudiced against sexists; I don’t feel I need to wait to hear their argument before I pass judgment on their character—at least with regard to their sexist attitudes.
Sexism is an easy example; real life contains many thorny cases in between positive and negative prejudices. Although, I should add, that no prejudice is inherently a good thing; rather, prejudice can serve to save time and guide behavior with only minimal review, and
that, under the appropriate circumstances, can be a good thing.
This example, the fat bashing, is sadly very active(uhm...sry not fitting word) here. At school, people are always like: "boah look, she is fat, it would be something for you", and at this time, I always leave the group, because nearly nothing is lower than this judging.
Yes. I would not want to associate with people like that, either.
Yeah, well, what did I want to say again... ah yes:
*stand up and claps*
You seem to be one of these rare persons who are as prejudiceless as possible, but as stupid as it may sound, even if people read your post, they won't change their opinion(most won't), because these wide ranged prejudices make "them"(the group at school for example) feel superiour, and people like feeling that way, so they won't stop.
You are very kind, but I don’t deserve to be called “as prejudice-less as possible.” Avoiding prejudice is not what motivates me in my behaviors, and sometimes I do take up prejudices when I feel they serve my real purposes. But you
are right that I try to be aware of who I am and what I do, not least because I care about treating people decently, when possible.
BTW, if I say I see people who are around my weight more attractive than people who weight much more, would this be a prejudice or just preference? Because this doesn't mean I don't like people weighting more, it just says what I find more attractive(and this doesn't descriminate the "fat" ones, does it?).
Sexual attraction is a difficult subject. The line between sexism and sexuality is very thin, and the two even overlap in some cases. A good rule of thumb is to accept that you are attracted to some people and not to others, and to direct your attempts at courtship and mating toward the former group, but to let the selectiveness end there.
For instance, I mentioned earlier that I prefer tall women—roughly my height, to be specific. That “preference” refers to a sexual attraction only. I suffer no delusions that a person’s height has any meaningful impact on her (or his) value as a human being and member of society.
Thanks again for the post Lord J esq., I feel good reading that people think like me in a few points.
Oh, and that's how it looks like if I write down my thoughts. *blushes*
Thank
you for such an open-minded reply. You’ve obviously got a better grasp than most on the issues of prejudice.
I say, throw your scales out the window, along with most of the fad diets out there. If you care about how you look, focus on fitness and your figure. Ignore your weight; even if you weigh a ton, you're not ugly and fat until you're round and pudgy. More importantly, buy a mirror and learn to dress, because if you've already put on the weight, then you probably ain't gonna lose it anytime soon.
That strikes me as sound advice; certainly much more thoughtful than “lose some fucking weight.”
I expect that we will someday discover that stress is a significant contributor to health problems. Therefore, inasmuch as anti-fat bigotry causes people to be stressed out by constantly worrying about their image, thinking they are bad people, and enduring taunts and jokes, it would stand to reason that, if we as a society were not so obsessed about fat, it would not be as unhealthy for us as it purportedly currently is.
And if you just don't care about how you look, good for you. Go to work wearing old, rotting sweat pants and a stained T-shirt if you want, but don't expect others not to judge you for it (Not that you would ever whine or complain, because you don't care, remember?). More importantly, don't think that others should drop their values concerning appearance just because of you.
This is not entirely on-topic of me, but your reasoning contains a flaw. Why should we not expect others not to judge us based on our appearance? I would in fact expect precisely that, in most cases, because it is part of my broader expectation that people use
sensible criteria for making judgments in the first place. Appearance is rarely a good source for making judgments about a person. Take your example of sweats and a t-shirt. We can certainly have artistic preferences about what looks good and what does not, but, to drag out another cliché, clothes do not make the person.
It's one thing to say it's wrong to judge based on skin color, but that doesn't mean it's okay to let yourself go.
Your post goes downhill from here, I’m afraid. The phrase “let yourself go” is just another instance of the anti-fat bigotry that is under discussion here. It implies that gaining weight is an act of self-neglect, lack of control, or poor self-respect.
That is not necessarily true!Gaining weight can be the result of an enjoyable lifestyle, or even an end unto itself. The act of associating weight gain with poor self-image is, plain and simple, bigotry.
You can't "lose a little blackness" from your skin tone* and whiten up, but you can control your weight, given enough time. Hell, you can even change the way you dress and carry yourself in a matter of minutes.
This did not come out as you intended, because you effectively implied that being black is a bad thing, except that, unlike weight, one has no control over it.
Yes, one can change their weight, but just because somebody
can do a thing, does not mean that they
must do that thing. People should gain or lose weight to suit their lifestyle—not to escape fatness as though fatness is a bad thing.
These are things that usually reflect how much you care about yourself. That's why people judge each other by them.
There is no “usually” about it, this time. What you see as “usually” is none other than a reflection of the pervasiveness of anti-fat bigotry in our society and around the world.
You know this topic.....I don't like it. It's mean in some kind of way that I have not figured out yet. I think of it someday or later today.
Let me know when you find out.
Exercise makes you less hungry. A couple months after I started my 4 mile/day walk regieme, I noticed a significant loss of apetite. Gotta love positive feedback loops.
Aye, I’ve noticed that. And in the same spirit, eating actually makes you
more hungry. On nearly every occasion when I can remember having eaten to surfeit, I experienced a shockingly strong appetite either a few hours later in the day, or, if I had eaten before bed, when I awoke the next morning.
It’s interesting how the body regulates its mechanisms like that…
And as for you, Nicole and Matt, I will thank you to stop making off-topic posts in this thread. I will delete every such post hereafter. I’m trying to host a meaningful discussion here!
Poll