100 lb. Club - When People Are Mean to the Obese

I just read this very mean blog post (http://liveonearth.livejournal.com/452825.html) about obese people. It made me so mad that I had to post my own response (http://www.myoaexperience.com/content/ignorance-unleashed)on my blog. Can you believe this lady?

While I agree that we generally must do our best to take responsibility for our lives, I just don't see the point in being downright mean to people with physical problems due to obesity. Surely this opinion isn't the answer to this issue.

I'd love to hear any responses from you guys. Am I the only one that is offended by this?

I just read this very mean blog post (http://liveonearth.livejournal.com/452825.html) about obese people. It made me so mad that I had to post my own response (http://www.myoaexperience.com/content/ignorance-unleashed)on my blog. Can you believe this lady?

While I agree that we generally must do our best to take responsibility for our lives, I just don't see the point in being downright mean to people with physical problems due to obesity. Surely this opinion isn't the answer to this issue.

I'd love to hear any responses from you guys. Am I the only one that is offended by this?

I posted a comment and now I feel better :)

I found the post very shortsighted. If the author were so concerned about people being responsible for themselves, shouldn't she maybe focus on herself instead of concerning with how others may choose (or not choose) to live their lives in a way that has little if any impact on her?

Seems pretty simple to me.

I think people like this get satisfaction and validation by judging people they view as inferior to themselves.

Pity her.

Uh. Actually I don't see anything "mean" in what she wrote. She didn't namecall anyone or say anything hateful. She presented her point of view and asked what I felt were some reasonable questions: At what point do we take responsibility for our own bodies.

So ... maybe someone can explain to me why this was so offensive?

.

Her comments to me speak mostly of ignorance. Her questions do make a certain amount of sense if you don't understand the complicated factors of obesity.

I found her argument that a fat person too poor to afford treatment, should save up the money by eating less to be particularly ridiculous. That's particularly rich (no pun intended), as the highest calorie/carb food are often the cheapest.

While obesity is not a class issue (I got fat and stayed fat on lower to upper middle-class salaries, first those of my parents and then those of mine and my husband's), the fastest growing obesity problems are among the poor, because of a variety of issues, including the fact that it is easier and cheaper to feed a family on high fat/carb/calorie foods than healthy foods. Many of the urban poor are feeding families from convenience stores because of lack of transportation... Even food pantries complain they have a shortage of healthy donations, because of the perception that poor folks are starving and need calories more than anything, where the truth is calorie-dense foods are more readily available free or cheap than nutrient dense foods.

Really, the problem is ignorance. This woman says she takes responsibility for HER body, but does she really? Perhaps her vices just haven't caught up with her yet. If her diet and lifestyle promotes heart disease, high blood pressure, cancer or other health issues, when she receives a diagnoses will she take advantage of her prescription drug coverage or health insurance for treatment/medication or will she decide to pay for all diagnostic tests, treatment and medications out of her own pocket because she takes full responsibility for those health issues?

Using the criminal cases as proof of fat people in general not taking personal responsibility is also completely ridiculous. When people are faced with a criminal charge (no matter what size, shape, age, social class, ethnicity....), the arguments they use in their defense are often ridiculous. The "normal" response to being charged with a crime is not to say "Agh, you caught me, it was all my fault, take me to jail." Instead, the person and their lawyer try to come up with a "good excuse," and if they can't find a good excuse, a lame one will have to do. "I couldn't help it, I'm fat," isn't any lamer an excuse that "I couldn't help it, because I've had a rough life, and didn't know any better, even though I've been convicted 8 times before."

Most judgements, bigotries, and prejudices are often based on grains of truth - but mostly it's a way of feeling morally superior to someone else, and usually it's by comparing only one facet of a person's life. I once worked with a woman who was incredibly judgemental about tons of subjects, including smoking, obesity, poverty.... and she was having an affair with a married man (and it wasn't her first such relationships). She would justify it by finding something terribly wrong with the wife or girl friend of the guy she was dating. I guess it's ok for a man to cheat on his wife if she's fat or boring.

I've noticed that the people who are the most judgemental often have the biggest skeletons in their own closets. "I may be a slut, but at least I'm not fat," (and I'm not making that up, those were the woman's exact words to someone pointing out she was no saint herself).

I didn't find it offensive. I think it's downright ridiculous that that man was released from prison because they couldn't accommodate, or that those other people might get off of MURDER charges because they're too fat?

Come on. There is nothing mean about pointing out how ridiculous and unfair that is.... and it does open a slippery slope. Boy George tried to use that excuse and luckily it didn't work (he was accused of beating someone, and said that he was too fat to do so).

I am overweight for a couple of reasons: My sedentary lifestyle, and my poor food choices. I had a hormonal problem (hypothyroidism) and I am having that corrected. *I* am taking responsibility for myself.

I don't agree with everything she wrote, but I do agree with most of it. I don't think it's fair that people get out of prison because of their weight (I also read about an obese man who was in prison and lost a significant amount of weight, you'd think he'd be happy that he lost weight, but he's suing the prison on the grounds that they "starved" him, even though he ate what every other prisoner ate). I don't think it's fair that people should be able to claim that they're too fat to get off on criminal charges.

She wasn't judging anyone, either, just saying to take responsibility for yourself. There's nothing offensive about that.

Aside from the picture she used of a man with his gut hanging out, impying (at least to me) that obese people can't even mind themselves enough to find clothes that can cover their stomachs, this paragraph struck me as odd:

It appears to me that employment discrimination against obese people is reasonable and justified. If a person had puncture wounds up and down their veins, an employer would be wise to guess that there might be a drug addiction at play that could affect job performance. If a person is morbidly obese, it is the same sort of sign that a person may well have a food addiction, an endocrine disorder, or an emotional issue that could impact job performance. Better to choose an employee whose physical plant is in good working order.

She's comparing obese people to heroin addicts. I know heroin addicts who lie, cheat and steal. I would not hire a heroin addict based on the desire to obtain a drug that overcomes everything else. While food addiction is very real, I have never known anyone to hold up a liquor store for donut money. I find the comparison incredulous and ignorant.

She provides no situation where food addiction impacts job performance. She doesn't say how it could. Further more, many people in this country suffer from emotional issues yet are capable of holding down a job. Many people suffer from endocrine disorders who can hold down a job. She also lumped those with a "food addiction" as being obese. They are not mutually exclusive. What job would a "food addict" not be able to have? I can't think of a situation.

Sure, there are some jobs where someone being obese might provide a physical limitation that would prevent them from performing to the fullest extent of the job description, but that doesn't mean you should assume that or lump all obese people (or those with a "food addiction" :lol:) wouldn't perform.

If she provided any reasonable example of how someone who is obese is "discriminated against justifiably" (a statement I find completely laughable), I may not have been bothered by it, but she lost me on all points with her failure to back up any of that paragraph with something that I as her reader could identify with or relate to.

That's why she came off as someone looking to simply validate her hatred of others.

I also know and understand that there are complications, but her point was that it isn't a reason to get a "get out of jail free card" or "be aquitted of murder charges card."

It reminds me of the "twinkie defense"

I also know and understand that there are complications, but her point was that it isn't a reason to get a "get out of jail free card" or "be aquitted of murder charges card."

It reminds me of the "twinkie defense"

Well, to that I would agree that it IS ridiculous that someone got a get out of jail free card because the jail couldn't accomodate him.

I still don't know why that makes fat people heroin addicts.

I still don't know why that makes fat people heroin addicts.But that's not what she said, and for you to put that statement into her mouth (or her writing as the case may be) is equally as bad as the orginal complaint against her writing.

I did find her main point - that people shouldn't be allowed to use their obesity as an excuse or a "get out of jail free card" - to be quite perfectly valid.

I also found her expectation of personal responsibility to be valid. I think she's a bit misguided in the details, but most people are.

I found her justification of discrimination to be laughable and have no problem saying so.

But let's not twist her words to make a point she didn't make while trying to make our point. :) That just makes our point invalid.

.

It was jail, not prison - and that's an important distinction, because jails routinely release prisoners who they cannot accomodate humanely for a variety of reasons. Usually they give them an alternative punishment like probation or home arrest.

Jails are short term facilities (usually one year sentences, at the max, and generally the average jail term is 30 to 60 days or less). They're also lower budget facilities and often have little or no medically trained staff. Sometimes the jail nurse visits once a week or less. Jails are housing prisoners who have been sentenced for less serious crimes (obviously, or the sentence would be much longer than a year) or are awaiting trial (presumed innocent until proven guilty).

Prisons on the other hand, are generally only housing those whove committed crimes carrying more severe and longer sentences. While they might serve less than a year, the original sentence would have been longer. Average prison sentences are counted in years, not days. Prisons also have higher budgets, and larger medical facilities (even entire prison hospitals), and even if a person were in an iron lung, there's probably a prison hospital that can accomodate the person's physical needs.

I worked as a probation officer for three years in central IL, and it was not at all unusual for prisoners to be released early or given alternative sentences because the jail could not accomodate a person's medical needs. For example, if a person has medical issues that require frequent meals or medications, many jails will release those prisoners early, or not accept them for no other reason that it's a hassle for jail personnel to meet the persons medical needs.

If a guy is so fat that he cannot fit in the jail house bunk, it's also possible that he would die of apnea or suffocation lying on the floor (or physically would not be able to get up by himself) - the jail has to provide a place for him to sleep without risking his death. Many small town jails don't have the budges to order him a special bed, or even hire movers to move his bed from home into the jail.

It may not seem "fair" but what's the alternative? Giving a person what amounts to a death sentence for them, even though it's a sentence that would be a slap on the wrist sentence to another person? That's not really fair either. "Your sentence is 30 days, but if it kills you, hey that's not our fault."

Some small county jails will not accomodate insulin dependent diabetics, because they don't have the medical facilities to do so. Probably most jails would refuse to house a kidney dialysis patient (even if the person were on trial for murder). They'd be granted affordable bail or even a recognizance bond so they would be responsible for their own medical treatments until or unless they were sentenced to prison, and then they'd be sent to a prison with the proper facilities. If they were sentenced to a jail term (not a prison term) they probably would be given an alternative sentence (probation, electronic monitoring, or some other creative solution like some counties do night only, or day only jail for work release and medical release inmates).

I don't think the piece is well reasoned, but I also didn't find it "hateful". I agree with some of her points...the airlines sell "space". It seems reasonable to me that if you take two spaces you should pay for both of them. (Professional musicians often buy a seat for their instrument.)

It also seems unreasonable that obesity should be a "get out of jail free" card. The idea that if you are overweight for medical reasons you should save your money by not eating and use it for treatment also seems absurd. I didn't agree with much of what she commented.

The employment thing is interesting. She makes a silly comparison in one way, obesity is not equivalent to heroin addiction, but if you read it differently, to mean if an employer can see an issue, it makes more sense. I am an employer. When I hire folks I consider whether there are any physical issues (including obesity) that will interfere with their ability to do the job. I discriminate against smokers when I am aware that they are applying (they smell and take excessive breaks, also tend to be sick more often.) I do have some concerns when I hire those who look to be in the morbidly obese category, historically they have cost a small fortune in health issues related to high blood pressure and diabetes. I look at how folks are moving physically during the interview, and I ask about job absences in the past. (And yes, I hire them, but I have to admit, I "weigh" the issues at times.)

I don't hear this women "hating" the overweight folks, just questioning whether obesity should entitle one to special consideration. (The initial comparison is to smokers, not heroine addicts.)

Again:
It appears to me that employment discrimination against obese people is reasonable and justified. If a person had puncture wounds up and down their veins, an employer would be wise to guess that there might be a drug addiction at play that could affect job performance. If a person is morbidly obese, it is the same sort of sign that a person may well have a food addiction, an endocrine disorder, or an emotional issue that could impact job performance. Better to choose an employee whose physical plant is in good working order.

Not putting words into her mouth- they are right there. At least to how I'm seeing it. She's saying that someone should be equally leary of a potential employee with track marks as someone with a food addiction (and apparently we have an excellent judge of lifestyle on our hands as well).

Also, I have no idea how you would be able to easily pin a food addiction on someone and took issue with her use of the the phrase "food addict". She was just a little quick to label and judge for me to see the reason in her argument. I think that the first part of her post and the second part of her post had very little to do with each other.

Either way, I found her argument riduculous.

ETA: That's not to say that I disagree or agree with what she said about airlines and making accommodations, I just had a problem with the paragraph re: employment and the picture she posted. She just lost me at that point.

Also re: smokers, I am affected by smokers around me. That affects my health. Someone who is obese does not affect my health. I also think that's a poor comparison (on her part).

Not putting words into her mouth- they are right there.

No, um, they're not. :)

She used an analogy. She said: it is the same sort of sign

You took that analogy and translated it into the statement: I still don't know why that makes fat people heroin addicts.

She did NOT call obese people heroin addicts.

She said that the physical indications of addiction can be ANALOGOUS to the physical indications of obesity.

Those are two VERY separate statements.

.

I don't think the piece is well reasoned, but I also didn't find it "hateful". I agree with some of her points...the airlines sell "space". It seems reasonable to me that if you take two spaces you should pay for both of them. (Professional musicians often buy a seat for their instrument.)

I agree, and off-topic: Bono once bought a first-class ticket for his favorite hat.

People buy extra seats for their pets.

Although I can see how embarrassing it would be to be required to pay for two seats, and expensive. I definitely feel sympathy there.

I'm 197 lbs and I barely fit in the seats! And I don't have that big of a butt and thighs.... they make those seats damn tiny!

No, um, they're not. :)

She used an analogy. She said: it is the same sort of sign

You took that analogy and translated it into the statement: I still don't know why that makes fat people heroin addicts.

She did NOT call obese people heroin addicts.

She said that the physical indications of addiction can be ANALOGOUS to the physical indications of obesity.

Those are two VERY separate statements.

.

um, ok.

ETA: :)

I looked into the particulars of this case and the crime, and the man was a 21 year old college student with apparently no previous criminal history. From the report I read, he had suffered three heart attacks earlier in life and suffered from ongoing arthritis, sleep apnea and other weight-related ailments (Even if he weighed 130 lbs, many jails would have found an alternative sentence for a man who had sleep apnea and three prior heart attacks).


The crime was "recklessly causing serious injury and affray" for smashing a bottle over a man's head in a bar fight. Now this isn't a trivial crime, but it's one that I saw as a probation officer many, many times and it wasn't at all unusual for such a defendent to serve no jail time, or a short jail sentence unless they had many prior violent convictions. Probation or even conditional discharge wasn't unlikely (in conditional discharge, the conviction disappears if you complete it without being charged and convicted of a more serious offense during the period of conditional discharge usually 18 months or less)

Instead of jail, For the length of his sentence, he is serving 8 hours of community service and 4 hours of counseling per week. I had similar (thin and average weight) defendents with longer criminal histories serve less than this for this level of crime. I've had others who would prefer a jail sentence such as this to the community service and counseling - in fact I've had probation clients who receiving such a sentence asked to be given jail time (because jail time could be "done and over with," and done with no effort as opposed to actually having to "do" something.) Heck, so many of my probation clients (with long criminal histories) preferred and would even request jail sentences over probation, because probation was "too hard" (it required they visit me for on average once a month for 15 minutes, and not be arrested and convicted of any crime, or sometimes only any crime at least as serious as what they're given probation for, for the term of the probation).

So given that this guy did not end up with any more harsh a sentence than any other person in his situation, what are people really angry at? Three heart attacks by the age of 21, and a sentence that any able-bodied person could also have gotten? Once again the media has made a non-story a sensational story to get people's dander up regarding "get out of jail free cards" for fat people.

Just another case where the truth doesn't really matter to many folks as long as they get to hate someone for it.

So given that this guy did not end up with any more harsh a sentence than any other person in his situation, what are people really angry at? Three heart attacks by the age of 21, and a sentence that any able-bodies person could also have gotten? Once again the media has made a non-story a sensational story to get people's dander up regarding "get out of jail free cards" for disgustingly fat people.

Is that McDonald's coffee I smell?;)

So given that this guy did not end up with any more harsh a sentence than any other person in his situation, what are people really angry at? Three heart attacks by the age of 21, and a sentence that any able-bodies person could also have gotten? Once again the media has made a non-story a sensational story to get people's dander up regarding "get out of jail free cards" for disgustingly fat people.

First of all, no one said that they were "disgustingly fat."

All i got from the blog was that the jail couldn't accommodate him, so he got out of jail.

Secondly, it's not just that, it's people using their obesity as a defense. Like "I couldn't have killed my son because my arms are too fat" is ridiculous. Boy George tried to use the "I'm too fat" defense but it didn't work.

Also, the problem with that is that it opens a whole wormhole of defenses, of people claiming that they have zero control over themselves when they do. It's like the infamous "twinkie defense." (I know it's a false defense, but it's still a good example.) http://www.snopes.com/legal/twinkie.asp

And no one hates anyone. I don't know where or how you gathered that. Saying that people should have responsibility for themselves isn't hateful.

Uh people using stupid defenses is in no way the domain of fat folks. Anyone facing a criminal charge that doesn't have a good excuse will try to use a lame one. But the fact is lame defenses rarely work - because normally intelligent people on juries and judges see through lame defenses. You can sue anyone for any reason (and many people do - normal people, not just obese people), but if it's not a good reason, you're probably going to lose. Idiots may copy idiots, but normal folks aren't often fooled.

The outrage in the woman's post shows a lot of anger, if not hate - but if you read the true story, the man actually got a fairly stiff sentence for the crime - but there's still outrage that he got out of jail. Why? Because people didn't bother to learn or even care about the truth. It was a lot easier to say this was a case of a man refusing to take responsibility for his weight - when the truth is he apparently was given a quite fair sentence - and is completing it successfully and responsibly (which in my experience was quite rare, - I would have loved to have more probation clients like this guy).

People (regardless of weight) who use "lame defense" excuses in criminal lawsuits or crazy claims for civil lawsuits, LOSE them most of the time, showing that these crazy excuses do not work. And while there's no shortage of idiots who do copy other idiots - the fact is normal people are perfectly able to distinguish truth from a person grasping at straws because they're desperate.

As for the Boy George and other cases you mentioned

"I couldn't have done that crime, because I'm _____," or
"I couldn't help but do that crime, because I'm _______

These defenses have been used with thousands of different words filling the blanks.

old
young
pretty
lazy
poor
rich
educated
uneducated


Yet we don't often hear the same kind or degree of uproar about these defendents using their particular adjective of choice as "opening a wormhole" of similar defenses.

How about that woman who was the teacher convicted of sexually molesting a student? Her attorney used the defense that she was too pretty to put in prison. Stupid defense and there was a media coverage (because stupid defenses make the news, not because they're all that common - but because we, the audience find them interesting - and the fact that we find them interesting is in part because they're not all that common - but put it in the media and it seems like it's "happening everwhere").

And yet no one has implied that such this teacher's defense would inspire other pretty women to go out and commit crimes because one woman was using it as an excuse. In fact, she apparently used it successfully as she did escape prison. So I guess that means pretty teachers and pretty women are going to be inspired to commit crimes because one pretty woman escaped punishment because she was too pretty for prison.

First of all, no one said that they were "disgustingly fat."

All i got from the blog was that the jail couldn't accommodate him, so he got out of jail.

Secondly, it's not just that, it's people using their obesity as a defense. Like "I couldn't have killed my son because my arms are too fat" is ridiculous. Boy George tried to use the "I'm too fat" defense but it didn't work.

Also, the problem with that is that it opens a whole wormhole of defenses, of people claiming that they have zero control over themselves when they do. It's like the infamous "twinkie defense." (I know it's a false defense, but it's still a good example.) http://www.snopes.com/legal/twinkie.asp

And no one hates anyone. I don't know where or how you gathered that. Saying that people should have responsibility for themselves isn't hateful.

I'm curious as to what your impression of the picture she used was? I thought it was an interesting choice on her part.

In an earlier post I said I didn't agree with everything she wrote, I should have said what, and using the picture was one of them. I didn't think it was necessary, only sensational. It's an emotional tactic, only used for emotional appeal, which is usually the worst way to persuade people.

In an earlier post I said I didn't agree with everything she wrote, I should have said what, and using the picture was one of them. I didn't think it was necessary, only sensational. It's an emotional tactic, only used for emotional appeal, which is usually the worst way to persuade people.

Fair enough :)

Can't say I disagree, either.

I can see both sides.

Yes, I did find it kinda harsh. I believe it was the attitude portrayed and the tone of her arguments. However, I can see the point of we are what we are because of the decisions we make. I mean, that is what we teach kids. For every action there is a reaction.

I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinions. I also believe that their is an exception to every rule. It is not right to classify all people with weight problems as addicts or whatever word you would like to insert. Whether a person is overweight or not, they are still a person with feelings, hopes, and dreams. I think it is important to be sensitive to others. Because we all have flaws..... would we want someone to be harsh to us?

Hmm I read it and it didn't bother me. I thought at the end she implied that employers should discriminate against someone because of their weight which I think is illegal unless the job specifies weight restrictions and can show they have a valid business reason to require certain height/weight requirements.

I mean I sort of agreed with her that people are responsible for their bodies and if they have a medical problem the best place to start is to get medical help.

EDIT: Wow lots of responses between the time I read it and wrote my response, heh.

Actually weight discrimination is legal in most states. Only a few states have passed laws against it, so in most places in the USA an employer could tell you in the interview "You're the most qualified person that has applied, but I just don't like people as fat as you, so I'm hiring someone else," and there's nothing you could do about it (no matter how fat that actually is, or in fact whether you're fat by any definition other than the interviewer's). Of course, the same interviewer could just as legally say, "I don't like skinny folks, so I'm hiring someone else."

What bothers me more than the original post is that people read the post and the come here and totally distort what she wrote, using words and phrases that she never used.

That kind of rhetoric is equally damaging to what some have described as her "hate" to begin with.

The picture she used was unnecessary. I agree.
Saying she called obese people heroin addicts was also unnecessary.
She did not use the words "disgustingly fat" in her article, so putting those words in her mouth is also unnecessary.

Debate what she DID say, not some warped and twisted version of what she wrote that is stated in such a way as to cause knee-jerk emotional reactions.

The only way a reasonable discussion can be had on the topic is if people quit sensationalizing their debate to garner and emotional response.

.

What bothers me more than the original post is that people read the post and the come here and totally distort what she wrote, using words and phrases that she never used.

That kind of rhetoric is equally damaging to what some have described as her "hate" to begin with.

The picture she used was unnecessary. I agree.
Saying she called obese people heroin addicts was also unnecessary.
She did not use the words "disgustingly fat" in her article, so putting those words in her mouth is also unnecessary.

Debate what she DID say, not some warped and twisted version of what she wrote that is stated in such a way as to cause knee-jerk emotional reactions.

The only way a reasonable discussion can be had on the topic is if people quit sensationalizing their debate to garner and emotional response.

.

PC, there was PLENTY more to my argument than that statement.

I took out the word "disgustingly," because you have a point, however there was an emotional and judgemental undertone in the woman's words. And for better or worse, emotional/judgemental words inspire emotional and judgemental responses.

However - I did not use the word to put it in her mouth - but in my ears. Reading her words, and seeing the photo she chose to accompany those words, I could feel her disgust in. Comparing overweight people to heroine addicts and bragging about one's own level of personal responsibility (without providing any evidence to the argument)... the self righteousness is unmistakeable. And claiming compassion for people with limitations, doesn't make it necessarily true. In fact, those words ring rather hollow in light of the entire content. I saw plenty of evidence of the disgust (which she didn't say) and very little of the compassion, which she did claim.

"If a person has a hormonal issue that causes them to gain weight, they need treatment for it. Not a free pass to be dangerous and obnoxious with the claim that they are too fat to help it. If they can't afford treatment, maybe they should save up some of the dough they spend on caloric intake and put it to another use."

Filled with compassion and understanding? I think not.

And for better or worse, emotional/judgemental words inspire emotional and judgemental responses.And the person who can resist falling into that trap and provide a calm, non-emotional response is the one that is going to stand a better chance of being listened to and heard.

I truly do think its HUGELY important, especially when faced with an issue that has these kinds of very personal emotional overtones.

When you (and I'm using the generic "you" here, not specifically at anyone in this thread) descend into the emotional rhetoric, you put yourself on the level of the person you're responding to and the entire argument/debate then becomes a "he said / she said" instead of a true discussion where people are educated and/or enlightened.

I think it's more important (however unfair it might be) for those of us who are obese (fat, overweight, whatever your word of choice is) to not appear emotional and overwrought about the topic because it feeds into the whole "hysterical fat person" stereotype. That sucks. But it's an unfortunate fact.

.

PC, there was PLENTY more to my argument than that statement. :)

And there was plenty more to her comment than the one about fat people being compared to addicts. But for better or for worse, because of the emotional distortion, that's the tidbit that's been pulled out and that registers. Which sorta kinda makes my point. :)

.

The employment thing is interesting. She makes a silly comparison in one way, obesity is not equivalent to heroin addiction, but if you read it differently, to mean if an employer can see an issue, it makes more sense. I am an employer. When I hire folks I consider whether there are any physical issues (including obesity) that will interfere with their ability to do the job. I discriminate against smokers when I am aware that they are applying (they smell and take excessive breaks, also tend to be sick more often.) I do have some concerns when I hire those who look to be in the morbidly obese category, historically they have cost a small fortune in health issues related to high blood pressure and diabetes. I look at how folks are moving physically during the interview, and I ask about job absences in the past. (And yes, I hire them, but I have to admit, I "weigh" the issues at times.)


This is slightly off subject...sorry

Wow...I am really concerned for you. This statement is blatently illegal. You CANNOT discriminate against applicants. Have you read the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act)? By law we are required to reasonalby accomodate any employee with a disability. And how can you purposely not hire smokers. I don't smoke, and actually find the smell quite offensive, but the fact that someone smokes does not make them a questionable hire. Just as a person with a weight problem would not be a questionable hire...unless it would prohibit them from performing all the job responsibilities. Even though apparently it is legal, as stated by a previous poster. But how can smoking prohibit somone from doing their job? I am astonished by the fact that you openly admit that you judge people based upon their physical movements and their smell. If someone did not hire you because you had a bad smell, or because you had a limp, how do you think that would make you feel? I realize that the hiring party can use certain types of discrimination, but the companies that have sensible hiring parties probably end up with the best pool of employees. Obese people, sometimes tend to over compensate to make up for their weight, which can make them harder workers....but that is not always the case either.


Quote: youth.eeoc.com:
"
Am I protected from discrimination if my employer thinks I have a disability, but I am not actually disabled?

Yes. Your employer may not discriminate against or harass you because it regards or treats you as being disabled, even if you are not currently disabled or never were disabled. For example, if an employer refuses to hire someone with a prominent facial scar because it believes that customers will react badly, the applicant may have a disability discrimination claim since the employer treated him as being disabled even though he did not have any limitations."


"Conditions that have a minor impact on a person's life activities, such as a slight limp or a minor hearing loss, also are not covered. "

Just something you may want to think about! :D


As for the article, it seems to me that the women has a valid concern, but is, as with most people who discriminate, only choosing one "class" of people to pick on. The bottom line should be that ANYONE who uses lame defenses should be called on the carpet. Not just obese people.

The airplane ticket problem should be addresse in a differnet way. They shouldn't necessarily make an obese person pay for two seats, but perhaps provide some planes with larger seats for larger people. As most know, airplane seats are small anyway. Another idea would be to use first class as an option, at a fee of course. But it's really not fair that obese people have to pay extra for things, such as clothing. Super skinny people don't get price breaks do they?

As for people taking responsibilities for their actions, I agree, in some areas. However to say that a poor person should save their pennies for other things is wrong. And if anyone has checked, seeking medical attention for obesity is not necessarily cheap. I would love to just get a weight loss pill, or lipo, or a gastric bypass but these things are not cheap. Just because a person is overweight does not mean they are lazy. What about people, like myself, who have other diseases, syndromes, or conditions which do not allow them to exercise. And not all people who are over weight eat that much more than normal people. That is where metabolism comes into play. I, myself have polycystic ovarian syndrome, which makes losing weight VERY hard, as well as a congenital dislocated hip which until a recent hip replacement, has made it virtually impossible to exercise. I will take responsibility for the fact that I may not make the best choices in food, but I refuse to beat myself up for something I have no control over.

Sorry for rambling!!! I love this board, and the fact that people are allowed to voice their opinions and reasonably disagree!

Just my 2 cents! :carrot:

And how can you purposely not hire smokers. I don't smoke,It is legal not to hire smokers as long as you state the fact up front. The American Cancer Society does not hire smokers and you can be fired if you do smoke - on or off the job.

Edited: Obesity is not considered a disability, so refusing to hire soemone who is obese isn't covered under the ADA.

Unless you're in a right to work state, you can pretty much be denied employment for any reason whatsoever.

.

You are right. I just feel that discrimination in any form is wrong. That is an emotional response. I apologize.

Oh no need to apologize. It's just soemthing that most people don't realize I guess. People think "you can't discriminate in hiring" ... when actually an employer can pretty much do whatever they want in hiring as long as it doesn't violate very specific discrimination laws.

You can't discriminate by race, sex, religion.
You can't discriminate against the disabled.

Other than that, you can hire or fire someone for being a Democrat, for having blonde hair, for having a tattoo, for not having a tattoo, for drinking alcohol (even off the job), for smoking, for wearing blue ... whatever.

.

I guess being in Human Resources, it's just a very important subject to me. And being overweight makes me sensitive to discrimination. But then again life isn't always fair huh? :)

The employment thing is interesting. She makes a silly comparison in one way, obesity is not equivalent to heroin addiction, but if you read it differently, to mean if an employer can see an issue, it makes more sense. I am an employer. When I hire folks I consider whether there are any physical issues (including obesity) that will interfere with their ability to do the job. I discriminate against smokers when I am aware that they are applying (they smell and take excessive breaks, also tend to be sick more often.) I do have some concerns when I hire those who look to be in the morbidly obese category, historically they have cost a small fortune in health issues related to high blood pressure and diabetes. I look at how folks are moving physically during the interview, and I ask about job absences in the past. (And yes, I hire them, but I have to admit, I "weigh" the issues at times.)


This is slightly off subject...sorry

Wow...I am really concerned for you. This statement is blatently illegal. You CANNOT discriminate against applicants. Have you read the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act)? By law we are required to reasonalby accomodate any employee with a disability. And how can you purposely not hire smokers. I don't smoke, and actually find the smell quite offensive, but the fact that someone smokes does not make them a questionable hire. Just as a person with a weight problem would not be a questionable hire...unless it would prohibit them from performing all the job responsibilities. Even though apparently it is legal, as stated by a previous poster. But how can smoking prohibit somone from doing their job? I am astonished by the fact that you openly admit that you judge people based upon their physical movements and their smell. If someone did not hire you because you had a bad smell, or because you had a limp, how do you think that would make you feel? I realize that the hiring party can use certain types of discrimination, but the companies that have sensible hiring parties probably end up with the best pool of employees. Obese people, sometimes tend to over compensate to make up for their weight, which can make them harder workers....but that is not always the case either.

If yours was slightly off topic mine is really off topic but I just wanted to say...if you ask people who are responsible for hiring if they've ever gone with their gut reaction about an applicant, despite a good interview, great resume/references, most will tell you that they have.

Have you read the book by Malcolm Gladwell, "Blink"? It is about rapid cognition and how we make decisions in the first 2 seconds of meeting someone. He claims that rapid cognition is reliable and could be an adaptive holdover from our prehistoric times when we didn't have the time to wonder or worry about a decision. I've made decisions about applicants before the interview, before reading the great resume, checking references. I'm not thinking, "I'm not hiring this girl because she's nine months pregnant (yes, I've had women apply for positions, visibly pregnant, who then tell me they'd need 6 weeks off for maternity leave) reeks of BO, has facial tatoos, sucked her thumb while talking to me in the foyer before the interview", I just feel that they aren't going to be a good fit and go on to the next applicant. Discrimination? Maybe...Does it happen all the time? ****, yeah!

I've talked myself out of my first impressions a few times in 15 years of hiring...and regretted it EVERY time.

Sorry to have hijacked the post!! The original post about the blog was interesting, I found it neutral on the scale of offensive/non-offensive but did feel sorry for the guy whose pic she used to make her point. That was wrong. Her points were mildly judgemental. And finally, I was in the airport in October, overheard a very big girl being asked to pay for 2 seats. It wasn't nice and got a little loud. The airlines don't "give 2 seats for the price of 1" for fat people. They very firmly insisted she pay for both seats.

In a very real sense, I think that many of the problems we have as a society are due to a misdirected, but a natural desire and goal of "fairness," but there is no way to make the world "perfectly fair," so there's always someone complaining that someone has it better or easier than someone else.

But whenever one effort is made to make a situation more fair for someone, it often makes the situation less fair for someone else. Getting it all to balance out in the end, isn't an easy task. Who is entitled to extra help, and how much and what kind of help should be given, is constantly in debate. And sometimes efforts to make it "more fair," only make more people feel further disadvantage, because "their situation" is one for which the extra help is not available.

The "what about me," syndrome can get pretty crazy.

I am eligible for some extra help, and I take advantage of some of it (though I don't look for every opportunity to make my life easier at someone else's expense). When I was working, I used my medical coverage. When I couldn't work anymore, I waited my two years (and luckily had medical coverage from my husband's employer) and now I'm on medicare (and boy in comparison to employer coverage, medicare sure sucks). I need some dental work done, but I have no dental coverage (very luckily, the bad teeth aren't the front teeth, so there's pain, but at least I don't look goofy). I'm not blaming anyone, but if medicare at some point covers dental - I'm getting my teeth fixed.

Some folks would say that I don't deserve SSDI or medical coverage because some of my health issues have behavior and lifestyle contributing factors (but even cancer, and not just lung cancer, has behavior and lifestyle factors).

Where we draw the line is very difficult to determine. Who deserves a job? Who deserves medical treatment? Who deserves access to a restaurant or a retail store? Who deserves to be able to use the restroom? Who deserves to be treated like a human being?

Some believe everyone. Some believe no one. Most of us, have beliefs somewhere in the middle. The tug-of-war is over the middle, not the extremes.

But whenever one effort is made to make a situation more fair for someone, it often makes the situation less fair for someone else. Getting it all to balance out in the end, isn't an easy task. Who is entitled to extra help, and how much and what kind of help should be given, is constantly in debate. And sometimes efforts to make it "more fair," only make more people feel further disadvantage, because "their situation" is one for which the extra help is not available.
The problem is that we're all inherently selfish. It's a survival mechanism.

Most people are all for fair as long as it doesn't impact THEM. :) Then the justification begins: I earned this. I deserve this. I have control of myself. Those other people didn't/don't. It's only FAIR that I get what I worked for. It's not FAIR that they get to benefit w/out the effort. Whatever.

And unfortunately that's something that's kinda hardwired into us as humans - that self-protection urge. Until and unless we're able to move past that, there will always be these kinds of situations.

.

Most people don't realize their own selfishness - it's only the selfishness of the other guy that is so obvious, and I think therein lies the solution as well as the problem.

When a person realizes they ARE the other guy as much as anyone else - that's where we see compassion. We may not completely understand each others problems, but when we see them as not too different from our own
we work together instead of at cross-purposes.

I first began to see it as a probation officer. When a probationee would (in all earnestness) express frustration at not being able to make changes in their lives that they wanted and knew they needed to make, I did understand. Some of the same feelings for career screw-ups were very similar to mine regarding weight loss. If I had a hard time changing my lifestyle to lose ten pounds, how much harder was it for a person to give up the lifestyle they were living, perhaps even one they had been born and raised in. If all their friends and families committed the crimes they were being charged with, how easy would it be for them to change?

And oddly (or maybe not) the probationees who I could get to see that change is NOT easy, were the ones most likely to be successful. "No, you're not an idiot, this change business is hard stuff!"

I would even use myself AS an example - "hey, I know how hard change is. If I'm struggling to lose 150 lbs, and not doing so hot - how much harder is it going to be to give up residential burglary - when it's the only way you've ever supported your family? Of course the difference is, I'm not going to jail for my lack of change (but I could die). There are always consequences, and there are always rewards. The hardest part of any human being trying to make changes, is that far too often short-term rewards are a lot stronger than long-term punishments. You've got to be able to find ways to create short-term rewards for the desired behavior."

I think the errors in weight-loss motivation are the same for some of these other behaviors too. We stress will-power or the three D's desire, determination, and discipline - but all of those rely too heavily on the future (which seems far too far away to be real for many folks).

Instead, when you can make the positive changes have at least some short-term rewards, the person has an easier time. It capitalizes on the natural human need for immediate reinforcement.

When I think about how great it will be to be thin (a billion years from now), it's hard to remember how important that is, when a piece of cheesecake is staring me in the face. However, when I buy fresh blackberries because they taste good (NOW), that's an easier choice to make. Setting myself up for success works better than trying to white knuckle the changes. And that works for criminals trying to go straight also. If you commit crimes when you're drunk, hanging out with your drinking buddies every night at the bar, may not be the best idea.

Sometimes you have to change yourself, and sometimes you have to change your environment, but setting yourself up for success beats setting yourself up for failure.

What usually does not help is other people telling you what an idiot or piece of worthless human garbage you are.

I was fine with everything until I read the 'kidding comment' about handicapped Canadians (as an obese Canadian with a critical illness). There's a reason I stay away from blogs in general unless I actually know the people - and will keep doing so.

Kaplods,

As usual your common sense and reflection add light without heat! If we start limiting health care or social services to those who "deserve" it, most of us won't qualify. I know obesity adds to health costs, but I know some athletes who have cost a fortune because the demands of their sport have damaged their bodies, similarly if you cause a car accident should you be deprived of health insurance? (No, nor should the obese be punished and deprived of health insurance. Not in the world I want to live in anyway.)

I see the airline thing a little differently. Health insurance is exactly shared risk over a large pool of folks, and government provided health care is the same. Airlines are private vendors (at least in theory) who are selling a specific amount of space to move you from one place to another. A person who requires two seats deprives the airline from selling the second seat. Airlines charge for extra luggage (okay now they charge for all luggage), they charge for the roomier accommodations in first or business class. I don't think we should demand that they provide two seats for one person at no charge.

You know I didn't find the post that bad, it did come across self rightous but the posters comments in response to other comments just makes me shake my head. She really has not clue and leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It's very sad to know there are people like that out there.

Kaplods,
If we start limiting health care or social services to those who "deserve" it, most of us won't qualify. I know obesity adds to health costs, but I know some athletes who have cost a fortune because the demands of their sport have damaged their bodies, similarly if you cause a car accident should you be deprived of health insurance? (No, nor should the obese be punished and deprived of health insurance. Not in the world I want to live in anyway.)

Health insurance is exactly shared risk over a large pool of folks, and government provided health care is the same.

Let me preface this response by saying that I in no way think anyone should be denied healthcare regardless of situation, pre-existing condition, or ability to pay for it. I'm not trying to say that obese people should be denied healthcare. I'm posing this question because I had to find answers for people asking it of me several years ago.

Now, in response to the "Health insurance is exactly shared risk over a large pool of folks" comment - isn't always. Sometimes it is a shared risk over a very small group of people. I'm in HR and at my last job I was the HR Director for a small company, only 37 insured employees - that was considered a 'micro group' by ***S at the time. We already didn't get the same rates as larger company. I paid 85% of the employee's coverage costs and subsidized part of their dependent coverage. I had an 80-85% utilization ratio on insurance for several years running because I had employees in the plan who took great care of themselves and we really pushed wellness programs, I got great renewal rates each year and was able to continue to subsidize employees insurance premiums at a higher than normal rate for the industry. One year I had an employee who had gastric bypass surgery. She had six subsequent claims for complications. When I received my utilization ratios for that year I had 82% for the entire company except for this one employee - her utilization was 723%. (Meaning that they paid out on her 723% of what was paid in on her coverage.) Our renewal came back at a 277% price increase on coverage for every employee because of this one person and their claims. We had to increase the amount the employees paid each month and decrease dependent subsidy - we shopped and found a better rate but it was still over $150k in price increase that we couldn't wholly absorb into the company. Several employees could no longer afford the coverage and had to drop after that. (Not to pick on the overweight person, I saw the same thing happen several years later when a person who had fallen off a horse at 19 years old had to have expensive neck and spine surgery at 58 while in our employ.)

So, should my single mother who can't afford to pay more in health insurance have to pay the same price increase as the woman who had gastric bypass surgery and caused the rate jump? Legally, I can't charge more to the woman who had the surgery that caused the claim. Legally, I also couldn't tell anyone whose claims had caused the increase,but small company - everyone knew. So for the next two years I had to deal with complaints from the people who had to drop coverage over the price increase every time they saw this employee come into their restaurants and eat horrible for her food and regain all the weight she lost with the gastric bypass surgery over the next 48 months. It was difficult to explain when they asked me. They didn't understand the shared risk point.

So, I believe in giving people better premiums on insurance for healthier habits, but not in the "you are overweight so you pay more" way. Discounts to stop smoking, to lose weight, to exercise more, etc. Is there a practical way to do that? Not really, other than wellness programs. Groups that try it often get hit with discrimination suits.

And, if you cause a car accident you wouldn't get denied health insurance, but you most definitely might lose car insurance and have to pay a higher rate from another provider.

It is legal not to hire smokers as long as you state the fact up front. The American Cancer Society does not hire smokers and you can be fired if you do smoke - on or off the job.

Edited: Obesity is not considered a disability, so refusing to hire soemone who is obese isn't covered under the ADA.

Unless you're in a right to work state, you can pretty much be denied employment for any reason whatsoever.

.

I worked for a corporation that you could be fired for smoking, and could not work for them if you did so yes it is legal not to hire a smoker.

I worked for a corporation that you could be fired for smoking, and could not work for them if you did so yes it is legal not to hire a smoker.

I work for a corporation that is like that right now. They are not hiring ANY tobacco users...and current users cannot use on or in company property. My company also offers free cessation programs AND cash bonuses for those who go throgh the program and stay tobacco free.