stilllurking wrote:People here make it seem like the concepts/situations are mutually exclusive, and they’re not. It’s possible that women are objectified and held up to impossible standards AND that our perceptions of normal vs. underweight have changed. Because despite these changes of perception, Barbie is still anatomically impossible, and models who are already super-thin are airbrushed/photoshopped so they too are anatomically impossible.
It is possible for there to be impossible standards for women’s bodies in the media at the same time that > 2/3 of women are overweight or obese. The standards for thinness and perfect proportions for models hasn’t changed in 40 years or more; if there are a few “big” models thrown into the mix, they’re exceptions to the rule.
It’s possible that more people are overweight/obese (by orders of magnitude) than are underweight, but that anorexia and bulimia are still big problems in certain segments of the population. Someone mentioned ballet dancers – they are the most egregious example (over 80% with eating disorders) but there are others, generally white and middle class or above, but overall 10% of women 25-45 have anorexia or bulimia. More than 50% of the women’s track team at my college were under the care of the health center for eating disorders. Because their coach was trying to help physics along and required extreme thinness. Developing eating disorders after dieting is very common. Sure, “this is a WOE and not a diet,” but please, we know that people approach it as a diet and even some female star McDougallers talk about counting calories.
It’s possible to have an eating disorder – especially bulimia – and be overweight.
It is possible for a McDougaller to develop an eating disorder.
It is possible to be unhealthily underweight (it is actually possible to be too rich and too thin). And, yes, being underweight is even more unhealthy than being obese, even when they’ve tried to adjust for people who are underweight because of cancer or some other fatal illness. And, yes, like I said, I know it’s much less common than overweight/obesity.
There are big differences between the attitude towards men being overweight and women. No matter the publicity of people who complain about fat shaming, etc.., the reality is that women are supposed to be a certain body type with certain breasts, waist and yes, butt.
(The Daily Show re Dadbods vs. Momshells:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRcrHP4xmlg )
Like coconut, I have a big butt. When I was in high school (over 30 years ago), my BMI was 21, so normal and healthy, though it could have been a bit lower, and boys and men would sometimes yell out of their car window about my big butt. That is of course in addition to the other
daily barrage of cat calls, objectification in the media, etc. that women face. So when Dr. McDougall says that his daughter’s friends “have big butts,” (and, by the way, having a pear shape – bigger butt and thighs and thinner waist – is supposed to be the healthiest body shape, if the concern is actually health and not some ideal of a woman’s body) how is that different from people yelling about my big butt out of car windows? If his intention is different, and I’m not denying it is, that doesn’t matter – the effect is the same. I would say only a man could think that’s ok to say that, but of course here and everywhere there are also women who think of themselves and other women as objects so they think it’s ok.
For a brief discussion and history of objectification via “dismemberment” of women’s bodies, see this article:
http://www.bustle.com/articles/22050-wh ... -to-piecesWhen (first) I gained weight in my early twenties, the cat calls stopped. For the first time since I was 10 or 11, I could walk down a busy street without honks and comments about my looks and/or anatomy. Of course everything else about being overweight was negative, and I missed having people I actually met be attracted to me, but there was some relief. I can imagine a woman going through that, and then it suddenly being ok for strangers to tell her she’s too fat (this didn't use to happen so much), and because of that she gets in on this anti- fat shaming kick. Now it’s not just women with nicer bodies who are objectified, but all women – seen as objects compared to an ideal, or objects of disgust -- instead of humans. I don’t agree with the “big is beautiful” campaign because “big” is generally unhealthy, but I can understand it. Because generally the reverse, instead of being support for health, is that fat is ugly and that women’s value is derived from our individual body parts. When people say that they know that overweight people are sitting on the couch eating junk, that doesn’t seem to hold any purpose here other than so that the speaker can feel superior, and in order for the fat person to feel inferior. There’s the pleasure trap, and there’s also a cycle of depression and illnesses, and all sorts of reasons why people are fat. And reasons why they might eat junk and sit on the couch. Or eat junk and exercise. Or eat well and sit on the couch. And some people eat well and exercise and are still fat. And around here those people are called liars. This despite the fact that, as I said, there are women who claim that they must count calories – even Star McDougallers, as well as HH – to make this program work, and counting calories is not part of the plan. Was HH saying she followed the plan but she wasn’t? What about the Star McDougallers here who talk about a maximum of 1,200 calories? Were they really not following the program if they ate more than 1,200 calories? Maybe we should take their gold stars away.
I don’t think it’s “ok” to be fat, or “acceptable” as a society, because I think it’s unhealthy, but I understand it. I’ve spent a lot of my adult life fat. And genetics is screaming for us to be fat. Sometimes I wonder what the regulars here think about Doug Lisle’s videos: do you think he’s lying, too, when he says that “eating less and exercising more doesn’t work”?
There are threads here about smelly farts, fat people at the grocery store, and like Coconut said – “OMG my coworker is fat and she STILL ate french fries! Can you believe it? No wonder she’s obese. This country is unbelievable. OMG.” on and on and on. It’s worse against women, but the judging is there against anyone who doesn’t fit the ideal.
I’ve lurked here for years, and I come back because, as Jim has pointed out in the obligatory “We’re all great” thread, some people are very supportive, and there’s a lot of interesting links and information. And there aren't a lot of places to go for a no-oil vegan. But every time I come back, whether it’s after a week or a few months, I leave again because of this judgment and misogyny that I witness. Someone said this type of thread is rare, but I’ve seen one every time I come here, and I only look at the first page of threads in the Lounge at the most. Maybe it’s just coincidence, but I doubt it. And the problem isn't some individual talking about how fat everyone at the grocery store is, or the obese coworker eating french fries. The problem is that if anyone says they're offended, all the regulars, including the moderator, criticizes them for suggesting they're offended. "you're overreacting," you can't control other people," etc. The survey gave two choices which were variants on the theme of "I'm offended," and then someone says "I'm offended," and they're still criticized (told they shouldn't feel the way they feel), even by the maker of the survey. Weird. Maybe instead of doubling, the membership here would have quadrupled or more since 2008 or whatever date Jim mentioned, if there were true openness here and also an understanding of the role of the media in women's self-worth and our ideas about food and dieting, etc.
