To think Prejudice against fat people is NOT as bad as racism.

[goodnessgracious]

To think the article in the Times today claiming that prejudice against fat people is as bad as racism and that it is one of the last socially acceptable forms of prejudice is ridiculous.

Firstly, obesity is normally caused by an addiction and has health implications for the obese person and further implications on society as whole. How can this be compared to racism in any way?

Also, it is not the last socially acceptable form of prejudice because I believe society is just as (if not more) prejudiced against smokers, alcoholics and gamblers and all people with addictions which have costs toward society.

AIBU to think that although it is not right to be prejudice against obese people it is ridiculous to compare it to racism.

Copied article extract below...

"Prejudice against fat people as bad as racism, say scientists "Dr Jackson said that prejudice against overweight people pervaded society and needed to be challenged. “People think it’s one of the last socially acceptable forms of prejudice. You just have to look at the comments section on media reports on obesity to see that obese people are subjected to labelling and even abuse and attack.”

Can't agree sorry Ms, thin is celebrated, sought after, desirable in our society - 'thin shaming' is wrong but just not causing the same damage as fat shaming at all.

I didn't say everyone can easily shrug them off, but some people, such as Mitchey certainly seem able to.

Having an anorexic friend thin shaming is just an unkind, iron board, fried eggs, walking down the street one day a random bloke to his mate but loud enough for everyone to hear "I bet you can hear her bones rattle if you shagged her". Verbal abuse is wrong on all levels.

Thin is not celebrated by the majority. Slim might be desirable by many but not thin: they are two different things. Some people think fat is desirable just like some people think thin is desirable but the majority do not aspire to be either of those as both are unhealthy.
You can argue all you like that thin shaming is not as harmful but you are just making yourself look ignorant and biased.

I found these definitions of thin on an online dictionary:

WORD CHOICE:

thin, slim, skinny, slender, lean, slight
Thin is a general word meaning that someone has little fat on their body. It is usually, but not always, disapproving
• He's much too thin.
• Teenage girls all seem to want to be thin.
Slim means thin in an attractive way
• her lovely slim figure
Skinny is a fairly informal word meaning very thin, which is usually disapproving
• ridiculously skinny models
Slender, lean, and slight are used mostly in written English.
Slender means thin in an attractive and graceful way
• long slender legs
Lean means thin and looking strong and fit
• a tall, lean athlete
Slight means thin and delicate-looking
• Her brother was very slight and looked younger than he was.
? See also thin

That is vile Thom

Ms I'm not saying one is less harmful to individuals than the other. But fat shaming (and for that matter the glorification of thinness as seen in advertising/fashion - and it is thinness, not slim) is more harmful in the sense that it is contributing to levels of obesity (and both also to eating disorders, anorexia included, as well).

Not sure what your point in copying out the dictionary is Ms, say what you like, if you want to plot the average model's BMI on a chart then 9 times out if ten it won't be hitting the healthy range...yet this is what too many women aspire to, not just healthy.

thats a pretty low rent online dictionary that you've used missunreasonable, sounds like it's aimed a teenagers of low socio economic status.

Looking at a site with a tad more academic merit we'd find something like:
adjective, thinner, thinnest.
1.
having relatively little extent from one surface or side to the opposite; not thick:
thin ice.
2.
of small cross section in comparison with the length; slender:
a thin wire.
3.
having little flesh; spare; lean:
a thin man.
4.
composed of or containing objects, particles, etc., widely separated; sparse:
thin vegetation.
5.
scant; not abundant or plentiful.
6.
of relatively slight consistency or viscosity:
thin soup.
7.
rarefied, as air.

re I bet you can hear her bones rattle if you shagged her that's just out and out vile misogeny
:(
(this thread is in the gutter now...yeah I'm not helping I know)

60% of people are over weight now.
There are very very few women who are underweight (i.e. for average height women under 8 stone) so that is not a major issue although anorexia where present is awful of course.

Some larger women call normal weights of 8 - 10 stone skinny which is ridiculous but I do not think ahyone has done so on this thread. It is part of conning themselves that their 14 stone or whatever is a healthy weight I suppose. If these higher weights were great we would all want our 9 stone daughters to get up to 18 stone and be giving them special foods to get their calorie intake up to the perfect 18 stone or whatever.

However none of this means it is easy for that 60% who are overweight to lose the weight particularly for women with small children who tend not to get enough sleep and not have too much time to rest and think about their health and who will have put weight on when pregnant. I would imagine mumsnet is more likely than many places to have women struggling with over eating and weight gain and the many healthy eating threads show how useful a place it can be to help women be as healthy as they choose to be.

Green you sound very kind and sympathetic in your last paragraph but (even given that you've shifted your 'unhealthy' 11 stone to 14 now), I think you'd upset fewer people if you gave it a rest with the judgement about numbers? Nobody here has said 8-10 stone is skinny as you say, but nor has anyone said someone should be 18 stone to be healthy!

I've nothing to add to the thread, but I wanted to let Thom know that I think it's beyond awful that your friend was made to feel like she was.

It's a disgusting thing for those men to have said in the first place, but to deliberately make it loud enough to be heard is shameful.

I have never changed my view and that of NHS doctors that the healthy weight for the woman of 5 foot 4 or 5 is 8 stone to 10 stone. Of course if you are a stone or two overweight you probably won't be immediately getting diabetes or needing a hip operation because of the extra weight you carry around but it's not a good thing to be over weight whether that's 11, 12, 13 15 or 20 stone. None of us doubt this. Ask any doctor.

I am afraid the science is really important and facts are vital. Many large people look around them see friends who are all 11 or 12 stone and think therefore they are all right. They aren't. That doesn't mean it's easy to get to or stay at healthy weights but just look in a mirror - we can all see if we are a healthy weight in there and the number is the key. The NHS like waist measurements and I thnk they are a good test too.

31.5 inches or more for women. Yes I'm afraid this is a fact and people cannot escape facts. Ignore things like can you squeesze into that size 14 dress or not, get the tape measure and measure the waist. Is it over 31.5 inches - if so live with it knowing it's not a healthy measurement or choose to lose weight if you can.

I think we are all pretty much in agreement about what are normal and healthy weights and that for many people it's hard to lose weight and keep it off (much harder than just losing it).

Well dont you worry Greengrow. its taken me over a year to lose 3 stone. I broke the 14 stone barrier today and went under Am currently 13 stone 12 as of today. ( i comfort ate when an affair ended Was stupid of me to give up sex and return to food.) Now food doesnt have a hold over me anymore. Because im swopping them around again. Its a much healthier form of expression.

thats a pretty low rent online dictionary that you've used missunreasonable, sounds like it's aimed a teenagers of low socio economic status.

It was the level that I thought was most appropriate for somebody who thinks thin shaming is not really a problem and isn't as hurtful as fat shaming.

Well there's a post hoc rationalization and no mistake missunreason!

Ah, that might be part of the key to this. Lots of sex, lots of beta endorphins (breast feeding is similar) = very good for you and natural, as natural as intermittent fasting was for our ancestors when food was scarce. Anyone losing weight, getting below 14 stone for the first time is doing really well. I suspect hormones play a part too and they are linked to sex drive.

More sex, less food must be part of the answer. Mind you I think it's more about eating better foods rather than fewer.

I do think our genes determine too how easy or otherwise it is to lose weight. My children's father not even trying got down to 9 stone at one point (5 foot 10) - his family are all thin. That concerned him so he just ate a bit more to get to his normal 10 stone. One of my twins (non identical so different genes from his twin) can just at a stroke decide to lose or gain weight. He is just not tempted by chocolates, cakes or anything like that. In fact he says it is easier to lose than gain weight and gaining involves getitng off your chair, going into the kitchen and eating more food which to him is more effort than not getting off the chair. That is very different from the mentality of most of us - that we rush without a thought off that chair to get some lovely food and over eat it. It is interesting listening to him. He decided to get from 9 to 10 stone over the summer to "bulk up" (teenager) and ate lots of almonds, extra baked potatoes etc and he did it as if it were an easy scientific exercise. About 3 years ago he did the same in reverse. if he could bottle his fomula he'd make a fortune as most of us don't have that ability (probably because our genes are better designed to survive the famines we never now suffer).

And food is of course linked very closely to hormones too Greengrow. It is interesting how different people are - and you are definitely right about eating better food probably being a big step forward. I think if every type of food available was the best possible quality (even processed food), then, other factors such as psychological issues aside, consumption overall would decline simply because our bodies would be better nourished.

Your DS sounds as if he has no emotional attachment to food in the way he can treat weight gain almost as a scientific experiment. Very lucky in that respect, I think many people would love to remove the emotional association (which is completely understandable but too often gets out of hand) that they have with food.

I have no problem with the morbidly obese except when they block my view in the chocolate aisle in B&M.

no mistake missunreason!

I didn't pretend it was a mistake. Nor do I pretend that I gain weight through anything except greed and a lack of willpower. I know when I gain weight I have done so because I have been greedy, careless and lazy and have nobody to blame but myself. I also don't pretend that fat shaming is worse than thin shaming.

I do the same thing, I adjust my food intake up or down in order to gain or lose weight, activity levels too.

Not that the margins for adjustment are especially wide, too much exercise makes me feel slightly under the weather, too much food makes me feel uncomfortable.

Of course some foods are very 'moreish' they tempt you into eating too much, I find it's best just to not buy those types of food, I soon lose the taste for them.

Now you're twisting my word mrs - please re-read my posts. Fat-shaming is worse than thin shaming only in the sense that it is having an impact on our society. Articles like this one about the rise in eating disorders in children and reports (indeed threads on here) of children as young as 5 saying that they think their thighs are fat....children are getting the message that there is no worse thing to be than fat - from adults and the media. And that thin and pretty, like a model, is the ideal. Now if there is one thing that can pretty much guarantee you end up an overweight adult it is embarking on a cycle of dieting as a child. And when you diet and lose weight, only to regain it again then it is your fault, for being 'greedy, careless and lazy'. Can you not see how that spiral continues and erodes a person's self esteem, sending them deeper into finding comfort in food because they can't meet the ideal?

I suspect she just doesn't understand the nuances of the debate tbh Sleep

hmm 'no mistake'!

'no mistake' was just a figure of speech underlining my point about the post hoc rationalization, she appeared to read something very different from what I posted

my point exactly .