I dealt with this in my earlier post, but perhaps you did not read it. You certainly did not respond to it. I will reiterate. Hollywood is not promoting health, they are promoting thinness. The two are not inextrictably linked. It is possible to be big and healthy, or thin and unhealthy – I know, I was thin and unhealthy for years. Now I am both thin and fit. It took a lot of work to become that way, and the “Hollywood body type” was no encouragement to me at all. All it encourages is thinness at any cost. I was already thin, so for some time I was quite happy to avoid all exercise. I have little doubt that I was physically far more lazy than the fattest poster here. If I had relied upon Hollywood as an incentive to change then I never would have begun exercising at all, at least not until I hit middle age and my metabolism slowed down and I started gaining weight. By then I’m sure it would have been very difficult for me to adjust my lifestyle.
I often hear about the new diets that celebrities are using, but rarely do I hear anything about their exercise habits. Most of them probably work out a little, but I can’t believe that Calista Flockheart or the women on “Friends” exercise much – they are clearly too scrawny to be carrying much muscle. That’s not healthy. There’s no way that trying to imitate that can be healthy. While the healthiest body may be one with a lot of muscle and little fat, it is far better to have a good amount of both muscle and fat than to have very little of either.
Actually, substituting “black” would have made a poor analogy. Weight can be lost, fortunes can be made, but skin color is immutable (at least without a ton of money and a career in pop music).
So, please tell me why society has so much less respect for fat people than for poor people. Both obesity and poverty are situational. Very often, they are passed down from generation to generation. Once in a while, a poor kid makes it big or a fat kid ends up on BayWatch, but usually the pattern just repeats itself.
“It’s different,” you argue. “Poor kids have fewer educational opportunities upon which to build success.” True, but fat kids have fewer exercise opportunities upon which to build fitness. Their fat (often inherited from parents, whether by nature or nurture) precludes them from participating in many active sports or hobbies and developing a healthy lifestyle. Like poverty, fat is self-perpetuating and usually very difficult to handle in adulthood after 18 years of reinforcement.
The fat person’s struggle for fitness is very like the poor person’s struggle for higher income, requiring a great deal of time, dedication and deprivation. Even then, genetic problems can interfere (low intelligence can preclude wealth, assorted physical problems can hamper weight loss). Some poor people have jumped from rags to riches overnight. Some fat people have slimmed down with no problem. However, knowing that it is possible for a particular individual to lose weight easily is not enough to assert that it is possible for every individual to lose weight easily. Given the societal pressures already at work, we know that people would be much thinner if it could be reasonably accomplished.
…which is where the OP breaks down. Showing only thin people on TV is not going to help a fat person lose weight any more than showing only rich people on TV would help a poor person make money. More potent motivations already exist, so these biases only serve to accentuate the negative.
Then again, it is naive to suggest that “Hollywood” is a viable agent for social good anyway. We don’t try to “help” the poor by showing lots of money on TV – instead we spend time, money and energy helping them learn to read, attend college, build homes, start businesses, etc. If Americans were truly concerned about the well-being of fat people, we would see more local fitness programs, 5K run/walks, fast food side dishes other than fries, support groups, etc. Instead of bumper stickers crying “No fat chicks”, you’d see signs saying “Walk with me!” Office parties would serve salad instead of pizza. Etc.
Since nobody seems interested in that, it would be better if we just left it alone. Fat people are almost always going to want be thinner. Poor people are almost always going to want to be richer. There’s no use in pointing out their situation unless you have something to contribute that they don’t already know. Harping on it endlessly smacks not of good will but of contempt.
Oh well. I will still refrain from stooping to your level.
As a personal attack, that one was exceptional. It was also well done in light of all the other personal attacks on my intelligence. However, as I have reiterated many times, your opinion of me does not matter. I know I am intelligent. Your opinion of my intelligence does not concern me.
As for flaming, I have no desire to flame with you here or anywhere else. I find you to be arrogant, condescending, silly, rather immature, and quite meaningless. I don’t care if you go in the pit and have a thread just about how much you dislike me. It simply does not matter to me. Your biased and childish ideas no longer interest me, as you have proved that you are unwillingly to accept different viewpoints.
As I pointed out in my third post, I was not attacking you. I was simply questioning your ideas. Instead of doing the same, you questioned my debate tactics and never once addressed the valuable and well-thought out comments I made.
I will say again, regardless of your opinion on my comments, that I answered the question, as did several other posters, many times. However, you chose to concentrate on debating skills instead of the merits of these comments. I do not have respect for someone who debates by pointing out flaws in debating skills instead of actually addressing the subject at hand, as many arrogant, condescending, silly, immature, and meaningless people do.
If anyone would like to continue to debate or discuss this topic, I would be happy to do so. However, I think the toic has been answered by myself and many other thought-provoking posters.
Thanks to the person who pointed out that I was using “flippin” as a substitute for “fucking.” It was true, I was trying to be polite in my replies, as I will continue to do in the future.
If a debater can say that fat people are lazy, weak-willed and worthy of shame (do I really have to pull all the quotes?) then I believe that person to be a prejudiced fuck. Hey, I believe the evidence of my own eyes.
Quicksilver, Johnnyharvard, I believe you are wondering why the impossibly thin ideal we see in Hollywood is not inspriring. Why we at least don’t try to slim down half way at least, instead of just give up. Well, I can provide an answer for that.
Because to Hollywood, and to many of the “thin mafia” (I encountered them a lot growing up in the San Fernando Valley) “half way” is never going to be good enough. It’s all or nothing. I have been reasonably not fat. At least in my own mind. Right now I am plump, but not horribly obese, but it still will never be enough. Whatever I lose, it’ll never be enough for the thin mafia. Unless my bones show through, I’ll never be “acceptable”. This is the definite message I get all the time from Hollywood.
As I mentioned before, I developed curves early on…that means hips, thighs and breasts. These things are not coming off. But what I saw around me were very thin women on TV and movies getting all sorts of admiration and attention for being thin. I DID NOT see that sort of attention being directed to women of my size, ever in Hollywood. So that leaves me out, forever. As a teenager, I understood this exclusion acutely. When I was younger, I looked to Hollywood to find role models. It was totally disheartening, and depressing. And I gave up. Why bother? To the thin mafia, whether you are a size 12 or a size 24, you are still a fat cow. It’s just a matter of degrees of how much of a fat cow they are.
When young people see Kate Winslett being called fat, why try anymore? When these young people see that EVERYONE in their family is Kate Winslett-sized (therefore their whole family are all “fat cows”) they usually see that genetics are against them. That no matter how much they diet, they’ll probably never be thinner than anyone else in their family, never be thinner than Kate, therefore, they are forever destined to be a Fat Cow. So, why try at all? Why put in all that effort and still be an outcast anyway? Why not just relax? You’ll still be a leper, no matter what you do. Either way, effort or not, you’re still EXCLUDED, baby.
THAT’S the message Hollywood gives. It’s not just that thin women are displayed in fawning adoration, it’s that anyone not quite thin enough is insulted, called “fat”, and that there is never any variation from that thin ideal. Hey, people complain that there are not enough minorities on TV. When a person of color never sees anyone of their color represented, how do you think it makes them feel? Can it said that it makes them feel “bad”? I think so. Same here. I am not saying that I am expecting to see really fat people idealized, just maybe Kate Winslett-sized (or Marilyn Monroe-sized) girls idealized. That is a beauty standard that many women could actually achieve. It would be a start, anyway.
It is true that many people finally realize that looking like Kate Winslett would be a Mighty Fine goal. That just being fit, for it’s own sake, is good enough. But they usually come to this conclusion after they purge all the CRAP that Hollywood has fed them all their lives.
Look! He already told you. It’s a skin condition. Alright?! Why you dissin’ Mikey? 
I still believe it’s sensationalism. It would have been very appropriate if I really were discriminating against fat people. But I’m not. So, IMHO, it was just added fuel to an already emotionaly over-charged debate.
Society certainsly does discriminate against the poor. The capitalist system in America very much discriminates against the poor. You cannot do/live/experience many wonderful things when you are poor. As you correctly noted, society attempts to give poor people the tools to help them help themselves out of poverty. It does not promise to make you as rich as Trump but it gives you the tools necessary so that you are only limited by your own ceiling (whatever that happens to be.) Same for the obese. Countless and countless amounts of material is available on weight loss. Just use your search engine and you will undoubtedly find more than you could imagine. Not a single month passes buy when I don’t see at least one popular mag on the stand with weight loss tips advertised on the front cover.
So here is where your comparisson falls apart:
Obesity transends the socio-economic boundaries. There are fat people in all walks of life. Rich and poor alike. You cannot claim that every obese person is poor and cannot afford a gym membership (not that one is required) or some basic exercise equipment. I have yet to live in a neighbourhood where there is not a gym within 3 miles. But we all know that all you need to start is a good pair of walking shoes no matter where you happen to live.
So yes, society does discriminate against the overweight. In a way it’s a much more incidious bias. But I imagine that’s because being poor or less intelligent is percieved as a much more tangeable setback than, for the most part, not practicing better eating and exercise habits.
Why do you assume it was easy for that given individual? Because they accomlished their goal where another has failed? Are you not simply deminishing the victory of one to avoid shaming the other? Is that productive to minimize the great efforts of the person who achieved his/her goal by saying that it must have been easy for him/her and that’s why they succeeded?
What do you mean by reasonable? Based on your previous assertion, I believe this last one to mean “easily” accomplished. Thus, I have to ask again - why do you assume it should be easy? Most things in life worth accomplishing are very difficult. The struggle, the effort IS what makes the achievement worthwhile. Perhaps for some fat people the struggle to be thin is not worthwhile? Fair enough. It’s a choice they make for themselves.
Oh, I don’t know. I think the movie Shindler’s List and Saving Private Ryan opened the eyes of a new generation to the horrors of war in ways the school books could not. That had to be good for the social good.
Hollywood does do the odd thought provoking thing now and then.
The fact that we are having a discussion on this topic now is, I believe, a good thing. I do agree that most of the time Hollywood is completely out of touch with reality - but that’s it’s job.
Like little leagues in every sport imaginable in every corner of this nation?
Does a month go by without a benefit run/walk/bike in every large city in this country?
Mcdonalds and Wendy’s featured salads for years now.
I can’t imagine there is not an existing support group sowhere for just about anything you can dream up.
I consider those to be as clever as Confederacy flags on pickups with gun racks.
…and I don’t believe this debate was attempt to rub salt in anyone’s wounds or simply to “harp” on the subject of obesity.
Lamia - I definitely agree with your post. I have a friend who weighs 115 lbs and is very unhealthy. She eats junk food and fast food for every meal, with an occasional salad thrown in. I weight 140 lbs, which is near the high range for my height, but I can run three miles without losing my breath. She has trouble walking up the hill to her classes! There is a huge difference between being thin and being healthy, and I have seen no proof that Calista and her cronies are anything other than thin.
Meara - your reply was awesome. I am very impressed by what you had to say about poverty vs. obesity - it’s true that society expects fat people to do for themselves but makes efforts (weak as they may be) to help the poor. Both are conditions that I have worked very diligently to overcome in my lifetime, and I have much respect for people who are doing or are struggling to do the same.
Biggirl - they can make fun of us as much as they want. We already know we are fabulous. 
Also, I have a question about language. When people who are thin are described in magazines, they are called just that - thin, or maybe petite. Usually, however, weight is not mentioned at all. But when Kate Winslet or Kate Dillion appear, you hear “plus-size,” “corpulent,” “full-figured,” “Romanesque” and many other descriptions. How come writers feel the need to comment that Kate Winslet is not as tiny as Kate Moss, but never do the same for the thin actresses and models?
I think our language on the topic of fat seriously influences our perception of what fat is.
Yosemitybabe wrote:
Brilliant! Thank you, Thank you, Thank you! That’s all I was trying to say! … Finally! I was ready to toss the towel in the ring.
Thank you!!!
QuickSilver - You were really trying to say all along that trying to look like the woman that Hollywood basically regards as a fat cow because her weight’s almost up to normal is the appropriate standard, goal, role model, or what have you, and what Hollywood portrays as beautiful isn’t the appropriate standard?
Thanks for clarifying. You sure had me confused there for awhile.
I don’t know. Was I? I have no idea what Kate Winslet looks like these days. She is the one from Titanic right? She looked pretty good there if memory serves. But more importantly, it’s what Yosemitebabe said about forgeting all the Hollywood CRAP about using Calista for an ideal archetype. Pick Kate, pick Demi, pick Angelina Jolie. I don’t know. Pick somebody more realistic and healthy looking and set that as your goal. You don’t have to buy all the crap Hollywood is selling. You’re selective about your movies so be selective about your role models. Pick one you like. Pick four. Change them often. Whatever you like. Just make a concious start for what you consider a realistic goal. But don’t just sit there saying since I can’t be the thinnest rail in the bunch I won’t even try.
Are we starting to come agree on some level? Dare I hope?
I - NEVER - SAID - THAT - ABOUT - YOU - OR - ANYONE - HERE! EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER!
You are not worthy of shame. You are not lazy. You are not weak-willed. All I said, for the millionth time, is that losing weight is not as hard as many fat people believe it to be. Period. I have since learned that to many fat people, including present company, simply stating that fact - even when presumed topic at hand is weight loss and the presumed environment is pursuing the truth - is analogous to every insult known to man. I am sorry I ever even laid eyes on this fucking thread.
I will never ever ever get into another argument with a fat person (woman?) because it’s a no-win situation. No matter what I say, no matter what the actual truth of the matter may be, the fat person is going to be extremely sensitive about the matter and will be unwilling to do anything but twist words and make false assumptions because of some crazy inner guilt-ridden angst that I will never ever understand.
Talking and helping are not the same. Fat people know they’re fat, and they know how to lose weight. Aside from the occasional nutritional finding, those magazines are not telling them anything new. How is that helping? Should we ditch welfare and just pass out copies of Fortune and SmartMoney? (warning: rhetorical sarcasm)
That’s irrelevant to this analogy. We are COMPARING poverty and obesity. Sure fat people exist in all socio-economic spheres. Poor people also come in all sizes. Perhaps a healthy poor person can’t afford a gym membership, but he CAN exercise for a few hours without collapsing. He may not have the education to succeed financially, but he was raised to eat a balanced diet. On the other hand, perhaps a fat person CAN afford the gym membership, but has trouble exercising due to the extra weight. Perhaps she got a great education, but was never taught to eat well.
You’re saying that exercise is difficult for lots of people and extra weight shouldn’t stop you. Well, nuclear physics is difficult for lots of people and illiteracy shouldn’t stop you. The point is that exercise is even MORE difficult for fat people. A little bit hurts a lot and many already have knee/foot problems which preclude walking. That means they have to pay for the gym and use an elliptical trainer or pool. That’s a lot more effort than walking or running around the block a few times every morning. It’s not impossible, but I can see why someone with an already busy schedule might choose to put other things first. Don’t second-guess that decision just because it’s not the one you would have made.
May I ask why, if it’s not much of a tangible setback, do you care so much if fat people change their ways? Why even consider whether Hollywood should show fat or thin people as rolemodels? Why the need to play parent on something so inconsequential.
I’ve never said it was easy for everyone who has succeeded. I was responding to the post earlier that said “I have never had any trouble, so the complainers are full of crap” or something to that effect. To those who struggled and succeeded (and there are many), Bravo! You deserve congratulations for your accomplishment. Of course, those who struggled hardest should understand best how difficult it is, and how someone might prioritize their goals a bit differently and devote more time to work, family, mental well-being, etc. depending on the situation. For someone to struggle valiantly against weight, succeed, and then turn around and express contempt for fat people is callous. That would be like me striking it rich and then showing contempt for all of you poor slobs still working for a living as I hand out free advice on how working harder will make you more money.
Great. We agree. So why is it a good thing for us to parent them by constantly “worrying” about their weight and second-guessing that decision?
Exactly. The “odd” thing now and then. “Saving Private Ryan” may have been great, but we’re hardly going to start trusting Hollywood for historical accuracy. Oprah’s a great influence, but we shouldn’t start looking to TV for examples of “healthy self-image”. More often than not, TV and movies are about fantasy, not reality. We should never encourage people to compare themselves to stars or use them as role models. A) It’s condescending to grown adults. B) It’s dangerous, given the nature of show business.
Of course, since I believe social engineering on the airwaves is likely to hurt more than help, we should encourage Hollywood to be realistic for the sakes of those who do idolize the actors. At the same time, we should use more accessible means to help people get healthier if they choose.
How many adult sports leagues do you see? I don’t know of any in my area that aren’t company-supported. Also, when’s the last time you saw an extra value meal with a diet coke, a grilled chicken sandwich and a side salad? I try to avoid McD’s because their healthy food is rare and tasteless. Boston Market, Wendy’s and Subway seem have more interesting options, but the majority of fast food is fried – probably because that’s what people want, whether fat or thin.
A more palatable suggestion, but I’d rather not encourage people to adopt Hollywood role models at all. They exist for fantasy. Do grown adults really need “role models” for fitness? And if so, wouldn’t Olympians, local sports buffs, etc. be better candidates?
“simply stating that fact - even when presumed topic at hand is weight loss and the presumed environment is pursuing the truth - is analogous to every insult known to man”
Simply stating that fact includes…
“I mean also pisses me off to hear people bitch about their weight and then see the hoards of people -with big 'ole flabby bellys hanging over their waistbands - standing in Wendy’s line in the food court during lunch. Jeez, have a little pride and little common sense”
AND:
“And they have big flabby bellies that strain against the tight cotton shirts that they wear tucked into pants worn about 4 inches too low. These bellies hang out and it’s really disgusting. And these are the men - most of the women are wearing extra tight blue jeans over about 24 inches of rear-end.”
Yes, weight loss = increased exercise + decreased caloric intake. We all know that.
However, it was the previous quoted comments that were “analogous to every insult known to man.”
Click on the link in my sig. This got way too fucking out of control (my own damn fault) and I asked Tuba to change things so it won’t happen again.
I guess I am that “ignorant newbie” who started everything. Thanks for the mention, johnny.
QuickSilver wrote:
Ooh, you’d hate her nowadays, Quicky. She’s put on weight since her Titanic days. She looks … GASP … like a normal, healthy woman now! How awful! She’s actually within the healthy adult weight range for somebody of her height and body frame size! What was she thinkin’?!
But rest assured, you won’t have to put up with seeing too many pictures of her, because every single entertainment-industry news reporter is calling her “chubby”. (Incidentally, one music reviewer called Karen Carpenter “chubby” while she really was annorexic. I’m sure it didn’t help her overcome her annorexia nervosa one bit to hear this.)
You forgot to mention that Kate is pregnant. Well, once she whittles herself down to 87 lbs so she can get an acting gig, she’ll have to have plastic surgery to get rid of those hideous stretch marks. Mine as well get a face lift too, because she definitely isn’t getting any younger!
You forgot to mention that Kate is pregnant. Well, once she whittles herself down to 87 lbs so she can get an acting gig, she’ll have to have plastic surgery to get rid of those hideous stretch marks. Mine as well get a face lift too, because she definitely isn’t getting any younger!
I was told about this particular site by a friend. At the time it was my understanding that this was an intellectual forum.
I am finding otherwise here.
It is turning out to be a great place to make sarcastic, cutting remarks to person’s outside of your own personal beliefs. Did I mention I really like that game?
Still, I am disturbed that people seem to believe that using big words in long, complicated sentences constitutes an intellectual conversation.
Another way of putting it:
Big words no make you sound smart.
At the risk of upsetting a great number of people I’d like to state a rather silly question based solely upon the last page of posts.
What are we fighting about?
Is it “Why people are fat?” or “Whether being fat is good or not?” or “Whether or not fat people eat ho-ho’s?”
It reminds me of the SATs.
Some dogs are black. Some dogs are big. Are all brown dogs big?
Some people are fat. Some people eat ho-ho’s. Are ALL ho-ho eaters (HHE) fat?
You’ll find it ironic that I am eating a ho-ho right now. Since we are far enough off topic as it already is and so full of ourselves and our own shit to have warranted an invite to a good old-fashioned BBQ and the ever classic attempt at dissappearing via name-change (pause to finish ho-ho consumption and breathe) I’d like to put forth and interesting, albeit, boring question (ain’t that an oxymoron?).
If I eat ho-ho’s am I fat? You are guaranteed to hurt yourself thinking about it. I almost pulled out my own lushious locks of hair thinking about it. I mean, when I ran track in high school I was a lean 120 lbs. Then I stopped running and started eating ho-hos. I ballooned to 150 lbs. Am I fat?
If you are saying, “But Mr. Bandit, we don’t know how tall you are!,” then you are saying the right thing.
But I’m not telling. That’d be sharing too much personal stuff and I’d hate to have someone attack me because I was short.
Have a wonderful night cyberspace and I sure hope that we can figure this debate out soon. It’s tiring reading the same thing over and over again. Until then I can only say, eat more twinkies, they are better than ho-hos anyway.