I just read this very mean blog post about obese people. It made me so mad that I had to post my own response 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 about obese people. It made me so mad that I had to post my own response 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.
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" ) 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."
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).
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!
Last edited by sunflowergirl68; 12-06-2008 at 05:15 PM.
When People Are Mean to the Obese
) wouldn't perform. 