Fat/Size Acceptance

[GothAnneGeddes]

I'm not sure if we have a thread on this yet, so apologies if we have and I've missed it.

I think of all the toxic, time-wasting shite women have to put up with, Diet Culture aka Be Thin and Win, is one of the most widespread. It is the unholy triumvirate of body policing, self hatred and bad science.

I thought this was a really interesting take on Jamie Oliver's new obesity campaign: shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2011/09/on-fat-hatred-and-eliminationism.html#disqus_thread

Would love to know what you all think

Just want to get this in before I hide the thread for a bit (reasons mentioned.)
The only area of life where I see fat discrimination as logical is on aircraft. The weight of the cargo directly affects the cost of the fuel. That's all - the rest is pure surmise and scaremongering afaict.

The average British woman is my height 5 foot 5. She used to be about 8 and a half stone to 9 stone at that height. Now she is sometimes even double that weight. of course there are some very tall women and very short ones but the average is 5 foot 5.

The main issue is that a lot of women seem to have nothing better to think about than how they look. I would say that's morally wrong. If you have so much spare time gio out and help an elderly neighbour do her shopping or scrub your floors more often and you might even lose some weight in the process. We have lost the view that pretty is as pretty does and that vanity is a sin. That's a shame.

garlicnutter but isnt there a massive difference between discriminating against someone who is fat (e.g thinking they are stupid or lazy) and the FAM (being seriously overweight is bad for your health)?

.....read it TM before you send....

garlicnutter but isnt there a massive difference between discriminating against someone who is fat (e.g thinking they are stupid or lazy) and the FAM (denying that being seriously overweight is bad for your health)?

another fat issues for feminism: food portions. Arnt they all man sized? by which i mean, if i go to a restaurant with DP, he has what he considers a full plate of food, so isn't it too large for a women's lower daily calorie requirements?

Last time I looked, the world didn't explode if you left some on your plate ... Would you rather they served smaller portions to women? Because I'd be making a right old show of myself if any restaurant tried that with me!!

Ha garlic when I started out in the dynamic high powered world of waitressing 15 years ago that is exactly what I was instructed to do. If the order was for a couple it was dished up in man size and woman sized, in fairness both were generous.
Nobody ever objected.

i dont want to be given a 'small portion for the lady'.... there probably arent many people seeking that in the feminist section....but still stands: the normal portion size is, IMO, a male portion.

oh and i will hunt down the information on weight and income and gender. it was on a Radio 4 news program recently but it must be online somewhere.

It will be interesting to see the gender difference as with weight and income, it's hard to prove cause rather than correlation

i.e Do fat people earn less because they're fat OR Do people from more affluent backgrounds tend to be thinner (due to access to healthy food/ better education etc)?

I suspect it's largely the latter.

That's timely SAF, my dsis said the same thing to me yesterday - new boyfriend, new jeans size. She has gone on another bloody fad diet now.. Somebody is making money

I meant to ask, Sal, did they charge less for the "ladies' portions"? Or offer a small-plate option to all diners? Thought not ...! It's straightforward discrimination, then, and I'd have threatened the patronising twunts with legal action.

Not to mention: how DARE they try to control their female customers' diets??!

Aren't they controlling all their customers diets?

TheBride, I disagree. Being thin isn't the outcome of a healthy diet, it's the outcome of a restricted diet. The healthy/expensive option gives you a better range of micronutrients (so is healthier) but basic calorie needs, protein, major vitamins and fibre are supplied by any normal Western diet.

There's a big difference between malnutition and starvation. Starvation is what happens when you have insufficient calories (you can die from it.) Malnutrition - lack of essential micronutrients - doesn't kill you, but leaves you vulnerable to disease. Neither is a problem in the industrially developed world.

Slebs are often saying the worst thing about having to be 'beautiful' all the time is being permanently hungry. Hunger is known to be the main reason why so many models are bad-tempered.

In summary, then, we think more highly of people - especially women - and reward them financially for keeping themselves in a state of semi-starvation. Nice.

By gender, ColdTruth, ffs.

You could fill it with lentils and tinned fish. But why would you want to lose weight?

This isn't a diet thread, it's a feminist thread about sizeism ...

I know garlic I was just messing around.

You don't have to eat tiny amounts, you can eat a healthy diet (depending on the persons size) but just make sure to do some form of exercise regularly. It's much healthier to lose weight by exercising and eating normally than going on a crash diet.

Ok- I should say that when I said "thin" I meant "normal weight" - i.e. not underweight, but without a lot of surplus fat (let's use BMI20-25 as an approximation)

When you look at high earning women in the UK, they tend to fall into this category rather than super-skinny IME (in the City). You see very few women who are model/ HW actress size. What you are seeing is the benefits of being able to eat sashimi for lunch and afford a PT a couple of times a week.

:) ColdTruth.

TheBride - What you are seeing is the benefits of being able to eat sashimi for lunch and afford a PT a couple of times a week. - yes, you are, but you're also seeing evidence that women know they must be slim to succeed. Which is weird, imo.

Definitely agree it's easier to eat healthily and enjoyably if you have money. Fruit and veg cost me a fortune - would be much cheaper to buy processed foods.

Also, BMI is a load of rubbish. I am mostly a fit active person - I walk the dog twice a day, run, and cycle/swim. However, I have periods where I drop the running and gain 'fat' as a result. I go up a clothes size. But my weight (and consequently my BMI) stays the same because the muscle tone is being lost to fat which takes up more room but is lighter.

I thought BMI could only be used as one tool among many now, precisely because it doesn't take into account build and exercise level adequately. Obviously someone who weighs 22 stone is going to have a problem and an obese BMT is just confirming the obvious, but someone who is borderline should have their general health and lifestyle factored in. It's a bit like the child growth percentile charts. They work for 'most' people and 'average' people, but that's no help if you don't fall in that category - and a surprising number don't.

GB

No, I'm not. You're seeing a correlation between earnings and body weight and making it cause and effect whereby you are thin and therefore you get to be a trader at Goldmans, whereas I'm saying that both normal body weight and high earning potential are caused by a third factor, coming from an affluent background in the first place.

I'm not denying that there isn't pressure on all women to conform to a certain body type. That is very clear. However, in terms of whether it directly affects earnings, I'm far from convinced.