to think that "fat shops" like Evans and Ann Harvey don't do their customers any favours by making their sizes much larger than they usually are?

[MrsSchadenfreude]

Was in London last week, nipped into both. Tried on jeans in Evans, even a size 16 was too big (and I am SO not a 16). Went into Horrible Ann Harvey, Polyester Queen, and overheard the woman saying to a customer, "No, the sizes come up much bigger than in regular shops. If you're a size 16 in M & S, there won't be anything here to fit you."

Is this not going to lull porkers (I am one, I am allowed to say that) into a false sense of their own size, if they think, oh I am "only" a size 16, which is not too bad, when actually they are probably a 22+ in "normal" shops?

Kaloki... Do you never just ignore people who call you names? I got called 'Dolly Parton' all through high school... teased constantly, 'small feet because they couldn't grow in the shade'... blah blah blah. I have three younger brothers, also constantly teasing me... I guess it made me less sensitive otherwise I would have been in tears all the time.

What makes you come on to threads where issues such as this are being discussed then? It seems as if you want to lnfluence people who call you names to tell them to stop - but those people aren't here are they? I've found from this thread that there is very little discussion, it become immediately a 'them and us' situation when really there's nothing of the kind, just a difference of opinion.

Anyway, I respect that you feel the way you do even though I don't feel the same way. :)

Why should I ignore them?

I came on this thread to actually talk about the sizing differences, then saw other posters being accused of being over sensitive because they were offended by an offensive term. I saw no need to walk away, why should I?

Kaloki... I just wondered, that's all. I was interested in the sizing differences too and saw the whole thread hijacked because some posters took offence at the term.

Porker' means plump or fat in my book.

Are offended people in the wrong? No. Are people who offend in the wrong? Yes. Is it someone's fault they are offended? No, but for heavens sake, if they are offended by being plump or fat then that's for them to tackle.

well your book clearly isn't a dictionary then.

And i don't think people are offended by the fact they may be overwieght. They are offended by the fact that they are referred to as a farm animal because of it.

What makes you come on to threads where issues such as this are being discussed then? It seems as if you want to lnfluence people who call you names to tell them to stop - but those people aren't here are they? I've found from this thread that there is very little discussion, it become immediately a 'them and us' situation when really there's nothing of the kind, just a difference of opinion.

well obviously my book is very different to your but, I always thought that conversing about a difference of opinion was debate?

And you are right, i think people who challenge offensive terms do want to irradicate the need for people to use them against them. By challenging ignorance and educating people on the reasons why such terminilogy is not only innacurate but also hurtful we stand mroe chance of reducing the use of them.

Lying, for the third time, porker is a pig that has been fatted for food meat. How can you say that's not offensive when used for a person?

Is "cow" offensive then? Or "silly ass"?

Sense of entitlement??? You mean people aren?t entitled to not be called fattened pig meat?

There's a difference between calling someone pig meat and calling them a cow, but yes, some people do take offence at being called a cow or a bitch or an ass. They're used to put someone down, that makes them offensive.

But there will always be someone who takes offence at something.

My Gran always used to say, when my cousin used to moan about not being able to lose weight that "no fat people came out of Belsen."

confuddled... I'm not you, I don't find it offensive, just a bit silly. You can repeat yourself ad nauseum but you won't change my mind.

MrsSchadenfreude... I was just thinking that myself.

Ladies, as I am sure you all know the reason that laws had to be put in for abuse/discrimination on religion, race, disability, sexuality, sex etc is because those abusing the "victims" would find many reasons to justify their behaviour, no amount of reasoning would work, so laws had to be put in place to stop them. One day a law will be brought in that will stop people abusing/discriminating against others looks. I hope that those that think it is ok to liken people to animals will look at themselves that day and realise they are no better than racists etc.

It is common for abusers to use such phrases as "you can't take a joke" to cover up their abuse of others.

I think you are wasting your time here.

I don't find it offensive, you'll be hard pushed to offend me. I explained what it meant "ad nauseum" as you don't seem to believe the dictionary.

I do think comparing people to animals in a derogatory way is insulting, in fact it says more about the person using the term than the person recieving it.

"It is common for abusers to use such phrases as "you can't take a joke" to cover up their abuse of others."

Very true.

Unfortunately, in the real world, people are never going to all be nice to each other, MummieHunnie. And would the police then arrest someone for being "lookist" - ooh, she called me a fat cow/ginger bitch etc etc.

I would hope they had better things to be doing.

Confuddled... Here's the thing, I'm not trying to offend you. I have no wish to offend you or anybody else and I haven't called anybody here or anywhere else a single name, I don't do that - not here and not in RL either.

I get it, a pig is a farmyard animal. I still don't understand your point. Men are often referred to as 'dogs', 'snakes', etc. for less than nice reasons. Is there a difference?

MummieHunnie... I really can't believe that you're making the comparison. Barring medical conditions, people do have a choice about what they do to their bodies. You can dress it up any way you like but it's a fact. If you want to excuse it under a heading of abusing or discriminating against 'victims', well that's up to you. I think it's a disgrace to be honest to play the 'victim card'.

The only people who damage their health that you have so far an issue with is "Fat" people. I asked you previously about other people who put their health at risk and you seemed to have no problem with them doing so.

I am ginger and have a wonky eye. No-one has mentioned either - or me being a porker - since I was about 9, when I was called "Carrot Tops." Which was clearly wrong as carrot tops are green.

MummieHunnie... I don't have any issue with anybody damaging their health. You asked me earlier if I was the extreme sports/alcohol/tobacco police. Strange question but I said I wasn't. I don't have any problem with whatever anybody does to themselves; they have control of themselves.

I'm starting to think that you are determined to pick a fight here, either that or you steadfastly refuse to comprehend what I'm saying. That's ok but I'm not going to let you twist what I'm saying to suit your agenda.

I get it, a pig is a farmyard animal. I still don't understand your point. Men are often referred to as 'dogs', 'snakes', etc. for less than nice reasons. Is there a difference?

no. they are all derogatory terms and should not be used.

I am astounded that rather than accept that a phrase was used perhaps without thought, there are people defending the notion that it is ok to compare someone to an animal because of their weight.

and as for the Belsen comment.
well, tbh i just dont have enough words to describe how seriously sick that comment is.

yogididabooboo... Did anybody actually say it was ok?

As for the Belsen comment, put it into perspective. It was somebody's granny who said that. That granny will have a far closer view of Belsen than anybody not of that generation.

Name-calling is something that happens; children do it, adults do it. It doesn't make it right but MrsSchadenfreude (the OP) already apologised saying that it was a term that she perceived to be less offensive than 'overweight' or similar.

This whole thread has been hijacked from the original topic... and for what? Arguments and bad feeling. Way to go!

I get the Belsen comment. Its about being grateful - yes you are fat, but it could be lots, lots, lots worse. Her granny was saying how you shouldn't complain about being fat as it means you have enough to eat. My grandfather liberated Belsen. He felt the same as MrsS's granny. He never saw the point in moaning about what you looked like as he had seen the worst that humanity had to offer.

Fat isn't evil. Take a look around. There's worse.

Out of interest, I have recently called myself lardybum, not due to some deep-seated self loathing, but because I can see in the mirror that I have a lardybum. I would never call someone else that name though. Lard is in the eye of the beholder.

I think that the initial question re the clothing fit has been adequately answered a coulpe of times by people who have explained that "outsize" clothing needs to be differently tailored rather than just having the same shape of clothing cut wider, for the clothes to fit properly they need to be cut differently.

the thread has indeed moved on, as do many threads of this nature and has instead become an interesting and i think valid discussion into the way people percieve a derogatory comment as either offensive or merely humorous.

And yes, by people telling those who have expressed concern over the use of such terms that they are over reacting or being oversensetive you are condoning their use. You are saying that it is the people who dislike their use that are in teh wrong.

That they should just accept that if they are overweight they will be verbally abused.

The Belsen comment was made by an elderly relative yes, but it was repeated on a thread connected to weight issues and was quite clearly used to infer that if you stop eating you will lose weight.

It was bloody vile

cobbled - I read it as "if you are on a starvation diet you wont get fat"

Yogididabooboo... You're making sweeping statements and assumptions based on them. If my view is that somebody is overreacting or being oversensitive, that's what I'm saying - not that name-calling is ok at all, just that the reaction to it (which it wasn't in the first place) is extreme.

I never said that the person(s) who disliked use of such terms were in the wrong; in fact I explicitly said that they weren't.

I never even suggested that if people are overweight they can expect to be abused. It is a sad fact of the society that we now live in that people no longer have parameters of behaviour. They say and do what they like. If you want somebody to blame, blame the parents.

I don't believe you really have a right to criticise the Belsen comment. It was a different generation and you and I will never truly understand what is was like. The comment wasn't vile, not on any level. Political correctedness has gone mad and it's now unwieldy and confused and in many cases just encourages people to seek legal redress for results of their own making.

What really offends me is the 'pack mentality' here. People who serve their own self-serving agenda and seek to twist comments made. I'm not allowing you to do that with mine. End of story.

if someone posts to say that the use of a derogatory term is wrong and then gets people accusing them of over reacting then yes, they are saying that to use such terms are ok.

if to react is to over react then according to that person the only response approrpiate is no reaction at all.

And as i have said, the comment may have originated many years ago in a different generation but it was used again here, today. It has no bearing on the discussion. Either the one about shop's sizing differences or derogatory terminology.

It was vile