Fat/Size Acceptance

Did your clothes lack structure and discipline Molly? Were they depressed and compensating due to excessive wardrobe rotation and too much time at home?

Xenia we get it, being at home wouldn't work for you. It's OK non of us are good at everything.

Pretty big generalisation there Xenia. Not all women who stay at home are reliant on their DH/P or anyone else bringing in the money.

Not all women who stay at home have any choice in the matter. The same as those who go to work, they don't have always have a choice either.

However on average working women weigh less than women at home. it may partly be the discipline of having to get into office clothes each day. It may be because they are less depressed stuffing their faces at home as they are dependent on male earnings and cooking cleaning and minding children 24/7 which is enough to drive most people to the biscuit tin.

Molly - it was all those biscuits wasn't it?

you just weren't working hard enough, dammit!!

As a professional with a full time job. Have always worked despite 3 dcs. How can Xenia explain my previous BMI>45?

"Sadly (but not surprisingly), gaining weight seems to have a harsher impact on women's income than it does on men's."

newsfeed.time.com/2011/06/07/study-for-women-skinnier-figures-can-equal-fatter-paychecks/

(i am off to watch torchwood and marvel at the amount of touch eclat that one man, with access to a makeup artist, can wear)

You're also less likely to eat biscuits all day as you're not allowed to at the till.

They are in some senses. If their husband moves a second wife in they are not dependent on his wages/maintenance as to what they will do (as they can support themselves) and if you are on the checkout you might work your way up to manage the branch and you are showing your daughters women work etc. You're also less likely to eat biscuits all day as you're not allowed to at the till.

yeah checkout operators on the min wage are all sorted

90% of people who lose weight on diets put more on after.

I woudl like women to think about who they look much less. (a) it's morally wrong to waste time and thought over your looks, vanity etc, a sin (b) it stops them making progress at work because they are thinking about lipstick or eating foods which are bad for them but supposedly diet foods.

However that doesn't mean that being overweight is great. If people changed what they ate they'd not put weight on in the first place. Quite hard to get fat on what I am sitting here eating for lunch for example.

(I have never said I denigrate people who stay at home and look after children, clean etc although it's terribly boring and most women with problems on here would solve them by going out and getting a job. They'd probably lose weight in the process or have no time to fuss about how they look).

mumwithdice exactly.

SaF- Yes, I know but that information is, without wanting to be rude "no shit sherlock". Everyone knows that a Big Mac and fries is less nutritious than a grilled tuna steak and green salad, yet people are still fat. Governments plough millions into "education programmes" but people are still fat. Annoying hunchbacks are making millions out of ridiculing fat people and poking their poo on mainstream TV and people are still fat.

I am not saying that being overweight isnt without it's downsides, but it's here to stay, so we have to find a more constructive way of dealing with it. Thre's no point in being King Canute. Better just to yell "surfs Up".

TheBride, so fat is neither good nor bad, it just is so can we move on and deal with other stuff now? Is that the gist? If so, agree completely.

My point being, that low carbing is just another way of restricting calorie intake. Most junk food is carb/fat combo so restricting either one has the same effect. All diets (low carb, low fat, blood type, face shape, Low GI etc) are all just a way of making you eat less crap and eat fewer calories whilst making some dude with a PhD he bought off the internet a millionaire.

Here's the only science that matters- "Energy can neither be created, nor destroyed, but only transferred from one state to another." Apparently a guy called Joule figured that out. Unfortunately he didn't have the sense to write a diet book about it Calories in-calories out. It is that simple but simple does not equal easy.

Many people struggle daily with a constant surplus of calories. Not eating too much is a constant battle of willpower that they will lose, sooner of later. They may get thin, but they probably wont stay thin.

So what can we do about it?

Why not just say "Right. Fat doesn't really matter in the scheme of things. Let's all just relax about it. Fuck off diet gurus, fuck off diet pill manufacturers, fuck off Special K makers- you'll have to find something else to do with all the surplus sawdust in the world."

Banging on about weight makes fat people unhappy, and especially women who are the main target of society's obsession with weight.

Ah yes, "Dr" Barry Groves, who I believe is about as much a doctor as our other friend "Dr" Gillian McKeith.

You only need to look at the science behind how a 'calorie' is determined to realise that the calorie in/calorie out theory is seriously flawed and has absolutely no relevance towards how humans process their food. If you believe it does have relevance, look at the research of John Yudkin, look at all the current work done by Gary Taubes, Barry Groves and you might see its not how much or how little you eat but WHAT you eat.

I'm a size 12-14, I believe this is my natural size, I'm think I am truly big boned as my dad is massively so. I enjoy what I eat and I have the knowledge of what is good for me, after reading from some of the above academics. I think the pseudo-science that is portrayed by most media outlets over what constitutes a 'healthy diet' is wrong and dangerous and mostly to blame for the state of the nations health. Please, anyone that is struggling with their weight, read Barry Groves, he might change the way you eat forever.

Yes.

SAF, you were right that I should have said 'non-dominant' instead of weak. I still think the leg-up is needed, though, as oppression leaves people with problems. So those who were 'dominant' have to facilitate solutions.

"feminism is for all women not just middle class, intelligent, able bodied cultural westerners."

Yes but you are making a sexist assertion that if you are working class you can't get power and succeed and rise to the top of an organisation.

I accept if you've got down's syndrome you won't or a very low IQ. Even if I had no legs I could do the work I do. Some disabilities do not stop people achieving an awful lot but society's expectation that because you're q woman you'll stay home and mind babies and clean whilst men work or because you're deaf you can't do XYZ are as much the things that hold women back as anything else.

Feminism has always had these differences and I don't usually use the word as it is never clear what it means to many people. There are those as I am who think it is about ensuring women have equal rights under the law and that there is fairness at home and others who think it means eschewing power, that work, leading and those sorts of values are awful and male and we should not go near them. I say that that latter position robs women of their rights and that it is sexist to say women don't want power, aren't assertive, just want ot be homd "caring". In fact we are humans and man y of us like lovely families and success at work just as men who are also human beings do.