You were warned to cut out the way you were posting and told your posting privleges were being discussed. Arguing against it the way you do here is the last thing you wanted to do. This is another warning for you and now a suspension.
When you come back, follow the rules and mod instructions the first few times you’re told.
I’m awfully late to this thread, but it certainly makes an entertaining read. Most worthy points on all sides of the argument have been made repeatedly by now, but there is one point I don’t see clearly stated (forgive me if I missed it), and that’s this one …
It’s false equivalence to present Ms. Kang’s photo and a photo of a running amputee/102-year-old fitness freak as the same. They are not alike at all.
In Kang’s photo, we don’t see evidence that’s she overcome any particular obstacles. She was born with the genetic capacity to look good and she’s still young. Yeah, she’s got three kids, but so what - those were presumably a CHOICE she made, knowing that for whatever reasons (naturally high energy levels, a helpful husband, strong motivation, etc.) she felt it was a challenge she could manage. No where is there an indication in her photo that she faced unusual difficulties not of her own making, and succeeded anyway.
When I look at a fit super-old person, or a very fit amputee, I’m impressed, because they OBVIOUSLY faced more challenges than average, and overcame them. In the case of the amputees, life threw absolutely unfair, exceptional shit at them, and they fought back with a vengeance. WOW.
The difference between Kang and a double amputee is like the difference between two Harvard grads: one was born into a wealthy family as a legacy, and had all the best schooling, tutors, etc. The other grew up with a crack mom, no dad, no money, lousy public schools and had to find their own scholarship program, then wash dishes throughout college to afford tuition.
Now both people have Harvard degrees, and both did study hard to earn them. Hurray for them both. Do they inspire you equally?
–
Having said that, I really don’t care much about Kang’s picture and I’m not offended by it. It makes me think she might be a little on the vain and shallow side, but she’s perfectly within her rights to go the “if you’ve got it, flaunt it” route, and she obviously does work at staying fit, so - hurray for her. It’s not necessary to heap derision on her.
You say she faced no unusual difficulties not of her own making, and that’s the problem - the image contradicts thousands of women who say having kids makes it very difficult to look like that. That’s why so many are attempting to deconstruct her life, genetics, parenting schedule and diet regimen. The reason for her success in an area so many fail can’t simply be hard work - she had some sort of unfair advantage and by jingo they’ll find it.
The real issue? Most people don’t look their best because they can’t be bothered - not lack of time, energy, medical issues, or poor genetics. Staying that fit isn’t important to them. But society has taught people (especially women) that they should give a crap so they can’t just say “Good for her and pass the donuts.” So, backlash.
You completely miss my point. My point is very simple: Her “what’s your excuse” photo is not analogous to a photo showing a double amputee doing a difficult athletic endeavor. There are posters here who are demanding that “if you think a photo of a double amputee running is admirable, you also have to admire Kang.” This is not true.
I would add that a further difference between Kang and the other photos is that from what I have seen, the other photos were generally taken/distributed by a third observer, who saw what something inspiring and shared it. Kang was self promoting. Note: I’m not saying Kang is bad. I am saying that approving of some of the other “what’s your excuse” photos does not necessitate approving of Kang. You can approve of the other photos, not approve of Kang, and be entirely logical and internally consistent.
In response, you say that: “most people don’t look their best because they can’t be bothered.” Okay. How is that statement in any way a meaningful response to the observation that “Photo A is not equivalent to Photo B”?
The message behind both photos using the same caption is that both subjects have overcome difficulties or adversity, why can’t you?
The viewpoint you’re ascribing to the two pictures - the parent chose her circumstances, the amputee didn’t - can be explained another way. That because of the relative rarity of the circumstances of the amputee, people admiring it or inspired by it have no frame of reference; there’s no “amputee shaming” because most aren’t amputees, likely don’t know any, and they’re only imagining how difficult whatever achievement was photographed was. Someone in a similar state would likely point the advantages the person had to access to achieve their goals - better baseline health than typical, youth, significant and specialized training and coaching resources, and some way of financing fairly pricey prosethetics and other equipment.
Kang’s achievement is more mundane from an objective viewpoint, but our subjective experience with how difficult it was/must be makes it more personal, especially since many in the same circumstances with the same resources have tried and failed. Hence all the speculation to disassociate themselves from Kang by citing differences or possible advantages. It’s actually from N. M. Fault’s “Excuse-Making 101,” Chapter Two: That’s Completely Different!, How To Focus On Minutae and Trivia To Explain Vast Differences In Performance. (Chapter One is Charlie Brown or Why Is Everyone Always Picking On Me?)
So the reaction isn’t really to the scope of the achievement, it’s about our subjective experience with it.
So I wonder, then, if amputees feel shamed when they see pictures of other amputees overcoming obstacles.
Indeed–wouldn’t it be pretty assholish behavior to show an amputee such a picture and then say “what’s your excuse?”
I agree with both of your thoughtful assessments, epbrown and CairoCarol.
Personally, I think she wouldn’t have garnered the negative reactions if the photo was less about her looks (“Look at how fit and cute I am!”) and more about how fit she truly is (“Watch me bench-press my kids combined weight!” or “Look at me doing a one-arm pull-up while holding my baby!”) These are feats that point more directly at health and fitness versus simply looking a certain way. It would also inspire other fit mothers (with more average bodies) to show off their own feats of strength (I might even sign up for Facebook if this became a “thing”!)
If you’re gonna go there with “What’s your excuse?”, you gotta brang it. That’s what I say, at least. Otherwise, you should probably go with the less braggadocious approach.
I’ve seen discussions before going off on what was called “motivational porn”, that showed a lot of disabled really do not like them. Example might being the disabled man who climbed Everest (or whatever it was) being shown as a “you can overcome anything!”, ignoring the fact that he was pretty well off financially to start with, had support, etc. His story was being used as feel-good “jerk off” material for the abled, and for a hammer to hit the other disabled with, showing they could “just get over their problems if the only tried” - ignoring financial and physical realities associated with such things.
I wouldn’t describe that as “shame”, though, although “shame” is certainly the intention the, for lack of better word, abusers are trying to make them feel.
Can we both be right here? I don’t really disagree with any of the above observations; I just don’t think it that there’s necessarily anything inconsistent or hypocritical about disliking the Kang photo while approving of some of the others. Moreover, it’s possible to be fit and to adhere to a sound exercise program and still think Kang doesn’t come off well in her photo.
Personally, I don’t make any excuses - I don’t need to, because my fitness regime and my weight/figure are really good (I’m not anywhere near as cute, of course, but I’m 55: this is a fact, not an excuse). Your analysis doesn’t account for people like me: those who are fit, proud of their accomplishments, happy with what they see in the mirror - and still inclined to interpret Kang’s photo as evidence that she’s probably, by my lights, on the vain and shallow side.
Remember that the picture went viral - originally it was posted for other fitness enthusiasts. As I said, change the audience and you get a different context.
We can agree. I don’t see her message as negative, but… studio shots with her boys in matching t-shirts is a bit more smug than the typical gym-rat shots you see where someone takes a selfie in the bathroom (also annoying since no one ever makes their bed first, ffs!).
So her career is in fitness then? It doesn’t really count when you do it for a living ya know. My wife went back to work and does her job as good as ever after having a kid too.
Her career is managing nursing homes. She writes a fitness blog as a hobby.
Oh I was mistaken then. In that case, I’m quite a bit more impressed. Keeping up any kind of hobby with kids is impressive 
I’m not insulted or outraged but her message seems a little hollow to me. “Fitness enthusiast blogger back in shape after 3 kids” isn’t really an inspiring story. She was obviously very fit before having kids and has the time to devote to getting that back. She claims she posted it to inspire her followers, but I’m sure her followers already knew that she had 3 kids and has a rockin’ body. It would be more inspiring to see a week’s schedule filled with 8-9 hour work days and how she fits in her workouts, time with family, etc.