From M. LeBlank at Bitch PhD:
Both fat people and gay people who are trying to fight bigotry spend a lot of time arguing that their condition is genetic. It’s pretty easy to see why: it seems like a very obviously bad thing to hate or discriminate against someone for something that is not within their control. So if you can just show someone that it’s genetic, or “it’s not a choice,” then you will show that they are being an asshole for judging you on that basis.
The thing is, I think this argument is selling the concept of “acceptance” really short. […] Arguing that things are out of someone’s control, and thus beyond criticism or bigotry, is a seductive tactic because it mirrors the arguments that are used against race discrimination. But the problem is, it’s the wrong metric.
“Choice” or “environment” is the wrong way to determine what reasons are good reasons to hate others. Discriminating against or hating someone for being fat or gay makes you an asshole because there’s nothing wrong with being fat or gay. Not because it’s not a choice.
But is it ok to hate people for lying about their motivations for their actions? Especially when they attempt to raise it to the fervor of a religious war?
I don’t get this. Fat is overeating and underexercising unless you have a medical condition. Gay is….not quite the same. Do fat kids realize in puberty that they need to eat too much? Or sit on their ass all day and drive everywhere?
Let this not be a “ohmigod he hates me big bones”. Sorry. Body type and size are very genetic. Eating ‘Merican Style is not. I once knew a woman almost as wide as she was tall. Fat, no. Chunky, yes. Genetics dealt her a fireplug body. She did not use her morphology as an excuse to whine about unfairness and then piggy eat. She knew firsthand the bias she faced and pretty much told you to FO if you could not get around her shape. She was a marvelously graceful dancer, unlike the trendy sylphs with no muscle tone.
Yep, I’m an ‘Merican fatty. No bias except eating too much and doing too little. I won’t cry about folks picking on me ’cause I did this to myself.
Mold, suppose you found out that it wasn’t a choice. That fat people couldn’t control their weight any more than their height. Suppose also you saw this for yourself: you changed your habits yourself so that you were eating and exercising moderately, and you were astonished to learn that you only lost 4-5 lbs and that essentially you weren’t the body size you are through choice at all.
Would that make a difference to your way of thinking? If there were lots of fat people who didn’t choose to be that way, would you give them a break? Would you stop assuming what exercise they didn’t do in puberty?
See my idea is that as well as it being a very useful thing to argue that choice doesn’t matter, we should still treat people with respect, one of the fastest ways (I believe) of convincing people, is to show that it’s NOT a choice. There are a whole lot of people whose sole justification for their bigotry and prejudice is that they think it’s a choice, and I think removing that leg they are standing on is important too.
Mold, you’re looking at it from the wrong end. It’s the hate that’s wrong — it doesn’t matter why people are the way they are (genetics or choice). What’s wrong is hating someone because he or she is different than yourself. You may say you did it to yourself, but that doesn’t give anyone else the right to rag on you or call you names. It’s not whining to tell people to STFU — it’s your life, and no one else has the right to try to live it for you.
Is it okay if I have a prejudice that causes me to think less of smokers?
::runs and hides::
“Discriminating against or hating someone for being fat or gay makes you an asshole because there’s nothing wrong with being fat or gay. ”
Just as there’s nothing wrong with being black. Or a woman.
Gay people and fat people keep falling back on the “it’s not a choice” position in an attempt to convince those who are homophobic and fatphobic. Why? Because those homophobic and fatphobic people really do believe that being gay, or being fat, not only stem from morally reprehensible choices (giving in to temptation that you know is wrong, being deliberately perverse, deciding to be lazy, deciding to get greedy with food) but have terrible negative consequences for you, your family, and the rest of society (AIDS, breakdown of the family, corrupting children, early death, diabetes, heart attacks, health care costs, not being able to move fast enough, using up more space than other people that more people could be using, eating more food, etc)
If you get that homophobes and fatphobes believe that people deliberately or negligently make these morally reprehensible choices… even when they KNOW or have been taught or warned that those paths will lead to terrible negative consequences for them and everyone else… then it’s not hard to see why they think being gay is bad and being fat is bad.
Now, one strategy to untangle this knot is to attack the front side and insist that no, it’s not a morally reprehensible choice, it’s not a choice at all! This would place being gay or fat into the realm of accident, where terrible consequences may ensue, but they couldn’t be avoided, so we just mourn the events as a tragedy and try to move on and take care of the damage.
Of course another route would be to say, actually look — these negative consequences? They’re not really there, or they’re not negative like you think they are. Or they result from thinking about things the wrong way, and discrimination. If you look at it differently and change your mind, you’ll see this stuff is not actually negative! I think this method seems much, much more difficult than the first one, especially for people with ingrained ideas.
I think fatphobia is a more difficult uphill battle at this point. If you look at the lists above in parentheses, a lot of the “choice” and “effect” stuff already sounds like something only a bigoted fundamentalist would say. With fat, on the other hand, there’s a lot of “common sense.” Heck I don’t even know how to counter some of these assumptions, although I could probably figure it out with some research.
There’s an idea out there that any one of us could choose to become fat at any time just by eating too much and not exercising. Which is true to some extent, you can’t change your body that much, just as you could choose to have sex with a member of the same sex, but it would be much more tricky to get yourself to really enjoy it. There’s also a very persistent idea that being fat has all these negative effects, will cause you to die earlier and make your life difficult in all sorts of ways that are unlikely to change… and I don’t think very much progress has been made in changing those ideas, even among progressives.
Holly, you are bang on. Another strategy is to point out all the choices people make that are protected. The sort of people who tend to foam about gays start to foam when you point out that religious choices used to be illegal and considered harmful to society. The notion that there are more negative consequences to being gay than there are to belonging to some cult, or even some fundie group that is just especially strict and isolating, is laughable.
The trump to end the “it’s-not-a-choice” argument is: Jewish is a choice.
Pingback: The Crux Of The Fuss : Elaine Vigneault
That idea is particularly persistent among cardiologists.
Ferg, are you said cardiologist? Do you have a medical report giving a full, unbiased, review of the health effects of being fat? If so, please link.
You must live in a world where drug and insurance companies don’t have control over doctors, politicians, media conglomerates and other people of influence. I suggest you become much more critical of what you read or hear about most of our “health problems” in this country, especially those dealing with this, *gasp*, “obesity epidemic.” What a perfect little dysphemism about fat people… an epidemic!
I suggest most of the people who say putting on weight has to do solely with overeating and under-exercising become more critical of the media. That’s where we hear that fat people are going to die and that they are ruining our economy, correct? Who funded that article or paid off that doctor to release such stereotypical information?
As much as fat people are “ruining” this economy, the “diet industry” (which doesn’t work) is helping it stay afloat. The agenda in this country is not to make everyone healthy; it’s to make a small percentage of Americans wealthy. Get your facts straight, people and stop believing everything you hear about the gluttony of fat people and the immorality of homosexuals.
Nan is on target here.
I wrote about this topic here:
http://www.elainevigneault.com/the-crux-of-the-fuss.html
Maybe not a fat pandemic but certainly an increase. I was a doughy kid in high school and would be among the thinnest kids attending school now. There are no children with fat wattles in any of my yearbook pics. In the local district many students have no neck.
Some cynics have suggested that when obesity became a disability a number of moochers found the Holy Grail. Do nothing, eat too much, and get paid for it. I worked with many people that yearned for the day disability would begin. They didn’t bother to learn or gain a useful skill and seemed put out that the world didn’t treat them better. Stupid and lazy is a combination that only works if your
family has wealth. The sly ones get “disabled”.
Ferg:
Have I talked to you before about one-liners that you think are clever, which actually aren’t? I know I have. Knock it off. Subtantive contributions, or hold your tongue.
Mold,
You’ve crossed the line here to hate speech. You’re banned from this thread until you apologize, and I’m seriously considering banning you from this blog.
I’ll modify what Mandolin said to Mold a little bit:
Mold, you may post in this thread again to apologize.
Apart from the apology, you may post a substantive, non-anecdotal, evidence-based argument supporting your views that avoids insulting tone and language like “stupid and lazy.” The evidence you cite has to be from a legitimate source others can read for themselves.
If you can’t do that, then you’re banned.
Branching off of Jamie’s comment, the frenzy about overweight is something I watched develop first hand in the Army. Initially they were pressuring people with bull necks and 10% body fat because the height/weight standards were products and creatures of a bureaucracy. Someone high enough up finally called BS on that and they introduced taping to establish body fat percentages as the norm. Then the Falkland Island affair came along – someone else’s affair, but still valid for policy-making – and it was the guys carrying a little extra weight who showed the better endurance, cold tolerance, and the all the predictable advantages in that particular environment. Change in policy……………uh, no. Cosmetic considerations won out.
And in that case the standards were wrong but not stupid. But nowadays there is the Size Zero nonsense, and for that matter the steroid silliness for men. The culture simply cannot stand normal grown-woman bodies. Girly shapes are fine, and if you can hang to it for a couple, three decades, you’re fabulous. Sad, sad, sad. For a society that claims to worship Mom and apple pie, why do women prefer to be compared to willows wands rather than cows?
I say this as a 54-y/o man, 5’9″/160 and just now starting to put a little on. I wish I had had some more weight back when I was freezing my rear off in the field in Germany in January.
Not sure how much of a trump card that is. Yes, being a practicing Jew is technically a choice–and, therefore, in theory, you can feel free to dislike or even hate people who have that belief system.
It is a bit trickier because “jewish” is also a culture, and the culture you were raised in is less of a choice.
We also acknowledge that people tend to be indoctrinated in religion at a young age (when they are not making a choice or held liable for their choices.) Furthermore, most religions are internally designed to discourage people from leaving.
As a result, religion in general straddles the choice mantra. I would have no squabble with the concept that adults who are nonreligious or of a different faith, who voluntarily choose to join Religion X, should be liable for their choice. You want to hate them, go ahead.
It’s a lot trickier if you look at someone who has failed to choose to leave a religion. Although lack of action is obviously a decision of a kind, it’s harder to judge.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the Nazis go after Jews based on blood, not on religious practice or anything related to choice?
This is sort of a weird process thing for me.
On the one hand, I don’t personally hate fat people or gay people, so, yeah, whatever, hating them could be banned and it wouldn’t affect me much.
But OTOH I think it’s good, and right, and important, that we continue to be able to hate people for what they choose to do. Hate is an important part of the continuum that spans all the way from despite and anger to love and respect. Hate can, oddly enough, be a good thing.
I’m not willing to tell people how to feel. And I’m sure as hell not willing to let anyone suggest that I shouldn’t, or can’t, hate/love/attack/praise whoever I damn well please….
So long, that is, as I’m doing so based on their own choice.
Which is why this question IS crucially important, at least for me and people like me. And we make up the majority of people in general, I think (though not necessarily on this blog); look, for example, at the enormous value we place on criminal intent. We’ve been doing that since the Talmud was written and we are continuing to do so now.
I’m not convinced that hatred is an especially useful tool for accomplishing anything worthwhile. Even if the target might arguably “deserve” being hated, how does doing so accomplish anything but incite retaliation and impede progress? Even in a situation where you’re forced to commit violence, it’s far better to keep your wits about you, and realize the gravity of what you’re doing, then to let yourself get carried away with anger. Yoda had it right.
What circumstances, what targets do you feel deserve true hatred?
But no one is arguing that there should be some general ban on hating people for their choices. The argument is that people shouldn’t hate gays and/or fat people even if they chose to be that way. The argument is pointing out that it’s not the choice or lack thereof that makes homophobia and/or fatphobia wrong. Homophobia and fatphobia are wrong regardless of the reasons people are gay and/or fat. And that’s what we should be arguing.
To paraphrase Kate Clinton, what are we going to be reduced to, holding up placards that say, “we’re here, we’re queer, we couldn’t be more sorry, it’s not our choice”?
I wonder whether the line of causality between thinking gayness/fatness is a choice and hating gay/fat people might not run the opposite way for many people — someone hates gay/fat people, and they latch on to the “choice” thing as a rationalization. If that’s the case, then arguing “gayness/fatness is OK regardless of whether it’s a choice” gets at the root of the problem.
FWIW, I say this every semester in my classes. Seriously every semester. Nice to hear another person say this.
I think the problem is that some people want to have a screen-out for civil rights based on “choice.” That is, people can’t *possibly* change their race, therefore race should not be used to limit employment, public accomodation, etc. And that analogy is openly used against gay civil rights initiatives – because they see being gay as a “choice” (I don’t know if the same argument is used against efforts to limit weight discrimination).
And, there actually is something to that agument. . . afterall, as a lesbian I actually *could* choose to act not-gay . . . I could get married to a man, and have his children, and keep my feelings to myself, and lots of people would just feel much better about that. And I guess if you severely deprived anybody of food they’d eventually starve and look pretty darn skinny. So, maybe you could say that being overweight is a choice – so no civil rights there, either.
But then, my neighbors who have just discovered strong religious feelings could also just keep quiet about it, and “act secular.” I don’t say to them that they don’t deserve a job or a place to live just ‘cuz they are a part of a religious group. And, at the risk of too much generalizing, it does seem that it’s somtimes the religious folks who complain that gays shouldn’t get rights because it’s a “choice”! Kind of funny, that.
Probably because a surprisingly large number of people are more likely to accept a negative-for-them outcome if they feel that there’s some quid pro quo and a reasonable “rule.” The tradeoff for the flag burning being legal is that the KKK gets to march through the downtown. It doesn’t make them magically like flag burners, and it doesn ‘t make me appreciate the KKK, but most people understand that those two things are linked.
OTOH, moralities change; fairly fast, it seems. If you hang your hat on the concept that ‘well, it’s a choice, but a fully defensible choice’ then generally speaking you’re going to have to defend it at a higher level than otherwise. You also run the risk that moralities will change and that your currently-supported stuff will go south.
I’m so glad you’ve said this. I’m queer and used to completely sign on for the ‘its not a choice’ thing, but then I realized in plenty of ways it is and that that is no reason why someone should support my civil liberties any less. By choice I mean that I could choose not to embrace my sexual preferences, but I don’t; I’m an adult and its what I want to do. I also think adults should be able to get nose jobs, tattoos, sex changes, and be into s&m if they choose to. I also have friends that are bi-sexual or pan-sexual and what would the ‘choice’ factor imply for them – that if they like ‘both’ then they *should* choose the opposite sex, which is a very steep and slippery slope indicating that heterosexuality is the norm. I like how I am, and given a choice to forfeit the bullshit I have to deal with for an easier life (on that one factor) I would not choose it, and in that sense I choose my life. I just really think we shouldn’t be mean simply because it’s mean, why do people need reasons like we should only treat everyone fairly on factors they can’t help, that is really dangerous because how do we decide what people can and can’t help, and then what kind of rationale is that for people who ‘just can’t help’ murdering or pedophilia? I don’t think anyone wants to embrace those behaviors simply because the person ‘was born that way’, but we use these excuses in other areas? An adults that make decisions that don’t hurt other people should be given all the freedom to make their own choices, when they hurt others then let’s get our stern faces and start passing judgement and laws, but gay people aren’t hurting anyway so who the hell cares WHY we’re gay?
thank you so much for posting this. although i’ve had this discussion in the past in terms of gay rights, i haven’t heard it applied to fat people, which i found very interesting.
what i don’t think has been mentioned yet is how dangerous the “it’s not a choice” argument is to gay people themselves. personally, i never had a clear definition of my own sexuality, so when i found myself in a lesbian relationship, my initial panic attack came from being unsure if i was really a lesbian. If the gay community continues to tell themselves that they are born completely gay and it’s not a a choice and it never changes, they alienate everyone whose sexuality doesn’t play out that way. someone i was discussing this with brought up the fact that every gay person she has ever talked to has told her they’d always been gay. my response was that even when it’s not true, it’s the narrative a lot of gay people need to buy into to feel better about their sexuality and to be accepted into the gay rights movement.
another thing that bothers me is the split between genetics and choice. someone can experience fluid sexuality without choosing it (let’s say i like women today, i might like men tomorrow, but it’s not a conscious decision.) we need to defend everyone’s experiences, those who are predetermined, those who choose freely, and those who are somewhere in between.
The “it’s not a choice” argument makes sense if it’s being criticized as immoral behavior. But yeah, it doesn’t reflect reality, especially if it means someone has to make an irrevocable, binary decision “gay or not,” like checking the male or female box. I’ve known lots of people who say it wasn’t a choice for them, but I’ve also known a lot who’ve had partners of either sex. That some in the gay community characterize bisexual behavior as betrayal isn’t helpful either (at all – if you go back to dating the opposite sex, you’re taking advantage of heterosexual privilege). I have no idea whether/to what degree environment influences sexual desire/behavior (not going to touch that with a 10-foot pole…), but it wouldn’t surprise me if it played a role.
Likewise for overweight/obesity: if it’s a matter of judging the fat person’s character for being that way, yes the judger is a jerk. But really, the evidence is hard to deny that more people are overweight than previously, and that it increases certain health risks. Most people would feel better physically and have more energy if they weighed 10 lbs. less. And if you’re aware of environmental factors that influence people to eat more than they need (as has been done extensively, see _Mindless Eating_ for example), it’s easier to reduce them.
Being overweight (BMI 25-30) is associated with slightly longer lifespans than being “normal” weight, according to federal mortality data. Being underweight is associated with shorter lifespans — just like being very, very fat is. (Source — pdf link. Debate regarding the source is here, and also here.)
So most people wouldn’t be any healthier if they lost ten pounds, nor do I know of any reason to believe that “most people would feel better physically and have more energy if they weighed 10 lbs less.” My guess is that most people would feel better physically and have more energy if they exercised more* — but that’s true regardless of if they lose weight.
(*Unless they’re already exercising a fair amount.)
Well, point taken, Ampersand. I’m really not saying anything about longevity in my post. Weight loss can come from a number of ways, some healthier than others: eating better and exercising more vs. doing nothing but eating some nasty soup, etc. If the lower weight is a product of those practices, and the weight loss stalls (who knows why?) unacceptably, then maybe it’s better for a person to accept the results than continue. And look, if you’re happy as you are, more power to you.
On the other hand, I think it’s misleading to look at weight loss as something that inevitably damages self esteem or makes one be depressed. I know that for me and for a number of others, even a small loss of weight resulted in feeling better in a lot of ways, not in depression or damaged self-esteem. The diets I followed focused on eating healthier and exercising (latter is something I always did a lot of anyway). Eating less and eating healthier got me to lose 20 lbs. But it also meant that I didn’t enjoy myself as much. I ate a bit more of what I liked, and gained 10 lbs., but that was fine. But if I eat as an end in itself, for pleasure or out of compulsion, I gain weight and feel worse in general.
The method of Weight Watchers, whose focus is weight loss through healthier food choices and exercise, is more responsible in that sense than lots of other programs, because they don’t expect weight loss results fast, and only have as the goal a 10% loss. Sometimes that’s not realistic, and you can set your own goal as well.
The overwhelming impression I get from looking at the WW forums is that a lot of people really don’t understand what a healthy diet is, nor are they regularly active. Nor have they been very introspective about what they consume. If you’re not conscious of what you’re consuming, then you’re far more likely to buy into the consumerism of prepared foods, where the focus is on size, not quality. The restrictions under WW make them reconsider their previous choices. Those choices usually lead to weight loss. I think it’s fine for most people to focus on changing behaviors rather than have weight loss as an end in itself, though it’s a lot easier for the individual to measure weight loss (one number…) than track behavioral changes.
“Those choices usually lead to weight loss.”
This is manifestly untrue when you look at the data, isn’t it? Or at least, untrue if the claim is either “significant weight loss” or “weight loss that doesn’t end up causing more weight gain at a later date.”
I think Weight Watchers might be okay for some people — especially people who want to lose ten pounds. That kind of weight loss, unless you’re very light in the first place, is essentially cosmetic, and it’s not on topic for this post. It’s possible that for a significant number of the “I just want to lose ten pounds” crowd, WW ends up being worthwhile, even if in the long term they only lose five pounds or gain the ten back.
But then again, maybe not. I think it’s unlikely that WW will ever fund a well-designed, blind, objective study to find out for sure — or if they fund such a study and the results are bad, they’ll keep it a secret.
That aside, my take is this: Weight Watchers is a corporation dedicated to becoming wealthy by taking advantage of people’s body self-hate. This makes them scum.
Furthermore, they make promises of major, long-term weight loss for fat people that they are unable to back up with any legitimate study, because their claims are lies. This makes them con artist scum, and the world would be better if they quit their jobs and become postal workers.
Most people will feel better if they eat better and exercise more, regardless of if they lose weight. Furthermore, someone who loses weight while eating badly and not exercising probably doesn’t feel better physically, and may be seriously ill. It therefore is illogical to say “losing weight will make most people feel better” instead of “eating better and exercise will make most people feel better.”
Sure, all of the companies promoting weight loss are out for profit. WW actually doesn’t require you use their products, unlike other companies like Jenny Craig. And I also disagree that people who only want cosmetic loss should use WW. Again, look at the forums, and see what people post. Still, significant weight loss under any system is atypical, as WW admits in their ads, see eg (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1350278, hardly the final word, but confirms what I’ve read elsewhere). (By the way, I’m just putting forward this system because it’s something I’m familiar with.) But does that mean that all weight loss is futile, or what’s possible is only cosmetic and therefore morally compromised? I wouldn’t agree with that.
WW say that they want people to change habits to something healthier, and having used their system, it’s pretty good. They’re not claiming to work miracles, just give people tools. What they’re really marketing is their system of tracking what you eat, something that you can do yourself for free after a while. Yes of course anyone could do this on one’s own for free from the beginning, but a lot of people wouldn’t know where to start or be willing to spend the time to do that. IMO, lots of corporate scum out there, and if I have a choice I’d rather give some money to this than the company that advertises organic cheese puffs by putting endangered species on the package. Your choice may be different. Most advertising for anything is morally compromised anyway, in my opinion.
And I don’t think I’m disagreeing substantially with the last paragraph you wrote, Ampersand.
Hey, is anyone else annoyed by the new Subway commercial with the dark-haired woman standing at the fast food restaurant counter? Apparently, the “our food is healthy, DAMNIT!” angle isn’t working for Subway, because the fast-food employee rattles off the “side effects” of eating their food, but they’re not health-related, they’re social penalties for being fat/results of stigmatization of fat people, like “loss of boyfriend”. I’m not even fat, and I was like “wow… not going there anymore.”