Reply
Wed 2 Apr, 2008 01:58 pm
Study: 'Weight-ism' More Widespread Than Racism
Yale Researchers Find Widespread Discrimination Against Overweight People
By LEE DYE - ABC News
April 2, 2008 ?-
It's illegal to discriminate against someone because of race or gender, but our culture condones a bias against people who are overweight.
There are no federal laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of weight, and only Michigan has such a law, according to a new study from Yale University.
As a result, the researchers contend, weight discrimination is spiraling upward, and that's a dangerous trend that could add fuel to the obesity epidemic.
Weight discrimination "occurs in employment settings and daily interpersonal relationships virtually as often as race discrimination, and in some cases even more frequently than age or gender discrimination," the researchers report in the current issue of the International Journal of Obesity.
Overweight women are twice as vulnerable as men, and discrimination strikes much earlier in their lives, the report states.
"This is a form of bias that remains very socially acceptable in our culture," research scientist Rebecca Puhl, lead author of the study, said in a telephone interview.
Puhl, who was trained as a clinical psychologist, and co-author Tatiana Andreyeva, studied data collected from 3,437 adults as part of a national survey conducted in 1995-1996. They have just updated the work in a disturbing paper showing that weight discrimination has accelerated through 2006.
Puhl, who has been studying weight discrimination for nine years, said our culture has made it clear that it's wrong to discriminate against someone because of race, color, creed, gender, age and so forth, but that it's OK to show someone the door because he or she is fat.
"We send a message to citizens in our culture that this is something that is tolerated," she said. "We live in a culture where we obviously place a premium on fitness, and fitness has come to symbolize very important values in our culture, like hard work and discipline and ambition. Unfortunately, if a person is not thin, or is overweight or obese, then they must lack self-discipline, have poor willpower, etc., and as a result they get blamed and stigmatized."
The social current driving this is the obvious fact that no one is responsible for his or her race, or gender or even age. That's a given. But the traditional thinking goes that people should be able to control their weight, so if they're obese, it's their fault.
But that, according to Puhl, is dead wrong.
"We place a lot of emphasis on personal responsibility for body weight," she said. "Our billion-dollar diet industry is founded on that premise. Your weight is modifiable. But that does not reflect the current state of science. We know from hundreds of randomized clinically controlled trials that it's very difficult to sustain weight loss over time with our existing treatment methods."
"That has compelled a number of expert panels, like the National Institutes of Health, to conclude that we really can't expect you to lose more than 10 percent of your body weight and be able to keep that off."
For a 300-pound man, she notes, that's a mere 30 pounds, and he's still overweight, unless he's nearly seven feet tall. Obesity is based on the body mass index (BMI) that is derived from a formula based on weight vs. height. Normal BMI is 18.5 to 24.9. Obesity begins at BMI 30 and ranges up to 40.
Puhl emphasized that she isn't saying people shouldn't try to control their weight. Scores of studies have shown that excess weight contributes to a wide range of diseases, and physical fitness is one of our best bets for fighting everything from heart attacks to aging. But let's face it, if diets worked, we would all be skinny. Many uncontrollable factors contribute to obesity, like genetics and some diseases, yet we still blame the individual.
The heart of the problem, Puhl said, is that obesity brings social stigmatism and stereotyping, and that can lead to depression, discrimination and binge eating, so the problem just gets worse.
But why are we failing so miserably at keeping our weight under control?
"We live in a very toxic food environment," Puhl said. "We make it very easy for people to be unhealthy. Unhealthy foods, or junk foods, are accessible, cheap and engineered to taste very, very good. Healthy foods, like produce, are not as accessible, and are more expensive."
And it's everywhere. A friend recently offered me one of those cookies sold by Girl Scouts in our community. The label on the box said one cookie has four grams of fat. And nobody eats just one Girl Scout cookie. It tastes great, it's cheap and it's for a worthy cause. But that little angel standing at your door is offering you a one-way ticket to obesity.
So grab a handful, and if you get fat, it's your fault, right?
"We take this personal responsibility approach and say well, just exercise more and eat less, but it's much more complicated than that," Puhl said. "If it were that easy, we wouldn't have this epidemic that we have now."
So people who are overweight, regardless of the cause, are blamed for their excesses and it's OK to discriminate against them, at least according to federal law and cultural norms.
Here are some of the findings in Puhl's study:
Men are not at serious risk of discrimination until their BMI reaches 35, while women begin experiencing an increase in discrimination at BMI 27.
Moderately obese women with a BMI of 30 to 35 are three times more likely than men in the same weight group to experience weight discrimination.
Compared to other forms of discrimination in the United States, weight discrimination is the third most prevalent cause of perceived discrimination among women (after gender and age) and the fourth most prevalent form of discrimination among all adults (after gender, age and race.)
Puhl (whose BMI is in the normal range) thinks this is a very big deal. Our culture, she said, sanctions biases against people who are even a little overweight. We blame them for a condition that may result from their genes, or a health problem, and that condemnation in many cases backfires.
And the solution isn't as simple as eat less, exercise more.
------------------------------------------------------
Lee Dye is a former science writer for the Los Angeles Times. He now lives in Juneau, Alaska.
I wrote this piece many years ago and posted it on A2K without editing some of the more inflamitive words. It got me banned from A2K for a while. This time, I hope I've edited it enough that I won't get banned. ---BBB
THE FUSTALUGE
(* Archaic term for a grossly obese person)
By BumbleBeeBoggie - May 6, 1991
Hey, ni*ger! Yo, honky!
(Sticks and stones)
Lazy dagos! or greasy spic wetbacks!
(May break my bones)
What about krauts, chinks or gooks?
Or, even more timely, rag heads and camel drivers!
(But names will never hurt me.)
Even liberals, the hated liberals.
And queers, don't forget the queers!
What is a fustaluge? The person it's still socially acceptable to malign. Even the most thoughtful, otherwise sensitive people call fat persons Fatso or blimp. Even a comic strip with a fat broad.
A Fat Broad! Have you ever said that? Thought that?
Hey, jumbo, if it's jelly it must shake like that! Move over, tubby, get your fat ass out of my way.
Literature demeans someone as evil or grotesque, not by describing them as thin, but nearly always an evil fat slob with fat lips, fat fingers, greasy fat oozing evil and degradation.
Don't you know any neat, nice loveable fat people in this world? Have you ignored their humanity, shut them out of your scope of interest and brushed them aside?
Names hurt. All names hurt!
Sticks and stones.
Speaking of names...
why is it ok to write "honky", "spic", "krauts", "chinks" or "gooks" out but not "nigger"?
Just curious.
Bella Dea
Bella Dea wrote:Speaking of names...
why is it ok to write "honky", "spic", "krauts", "chinks" or "gooks" out but not "nigger"?
Just curious.
To avoid getting banned, as I was originally informed.
BBB
Bella Dea wrote:Speaking of names...
why is it ok to write "honky", "spic", "krauts", "chinks" or "gooks" out but not "nigger"?
Just curious.
Blacks can say the word but non-blacks can not, which does not make a lick of sense to me.
Re: Bella Dea
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:Bella Dea wrote:Speaking of names...
why is it ok to write "honky", "spic", "krauts", "chinks" or "gooks" out but not "nigger"?
Just curious.
To avoid getting banned, as I was originally informed.
BBB
Which still doesn't answer the question....why were you banned for "nigger" and not any of the others?
I think they are all equally offensive.
hawkeye10 wrote:Bella Dea wrote:Speaking of names...
why is it ok to write "honky", "spic", "krauts", "chinks" or "gooks" out but not "nigger"?
Just curious.
Blacks can say the word but non-blacks can not, which does not make a lick of sense to me.
It didn't make any sense to me but I still was banned.
BBB
Re: Bella Dea
Bella Dea wrote:BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:Bella Dea wrote:Speaking of names...
why is it ok to write "honky", "spic", "krauts", "chinks" or "gooks" out but not "nigger"?
Just curious.
To avoid getting banned, as I was originally informed.
BBB
Which still doesn't answer the question....why were you banned for "nigger" and not any of the others?
I think they are all equally offensive.
Bella, all of the words are offensive, which was my point in writing the piece, but I still was banned. If my memory is correct, it was because A2K had to protect their site from random word searching by those who feel the necessity to protect people from nasty words.
At this point, I'm more interested in why people think they can call fat people names and discriminate againhst them. The one major discrimination that is still acceptable and no one notices and objects.
BBB
Re: Bella Dea
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:Bella Dea wrote:BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:Bella Dea wrote:Speaking of names...
why is it ok to write "honky", "spic", "krauts", "chinks" or "gooks" out but not "nigger"?
Just curious.
To avoid getting banned, as I was originally informed.
BBB
Which still doesn't answer the question....why were you banned for "nigger" and not any of the others?
I think they are all equally offensive.
Bella, all of the words are offensive, which was my point in writing the piece, but I still was banned. If my memory is correct, it was because A2K had to protect their site from random word searching by those who feel the necessity to protect people from nasty words.
At this point, I'm more interested in why people think they can call fat people names and discriminate them. The one major discrimination that is still acceptable and no one notices and objects.
BBB
I know, I wasn't getting on you about it. I just think that it is odd that not only can people be called fat and it's ok but apparently people can be called honky and it's ok. At least on A2K.
I think that this further drives your point home that not all labels are created equal, even though they should be and all names should be equally offensive because they can all be equally hurtful.
Bella
I now also recall that I was banned because I reposted the piece after it was deleted from A2K and I didn't know what the problem was until Craven sent me a PM explaining the legal protection reason and why I was banned. It cause quite an uproar at the time, but we resolved it.
BBB
Then you get ads like this. OMG, this chick is so fat. She needs to lose at
least 20oz.
Fat Ass
Biases fill a need in so many people who need to feel superior. They need to feel superior because they aren't superior.
I do think that we all have biases, but we have enough sensibility to others' feelings that we don't express them. The outward expression to me represents a meaness of spirit and a lack of a sensitivity that helps keep our society's civility badly damaged, but we still have an understanding (most of us) that to express an opinion at someone else's expense is demeaning to the speaker far more than to the person being insulted.
Racism is still out there. Black people are rarely lynched for being black, but it wasn't that long ago that they were. Religious bigotry can be and is deadly. I've never known of anyone who has been killed by another just because they are fat. Yet the emotional damage is very real and extremely damaging in the same way that depression can be a terminal illness if it becomes too severe.
I wouldn't ask for a law to prevent calling people fat, but if simple civility could be taught at home and in the schools, it would go a long way to help heal a mean spirited, even reprehensible element of our society.
Thanks, JPB. My weight has been all over the scale, so I've been through that feeling of worthlessness and real ugliness being overweight can produce.
I haven't seen too much discrimination about large people, generally speaking (however, I believe it exists), but I do recall one employer who wouldn't let me hire a large woman for the reception desk. Granted, she was in need of a few grooming tips and maybe a wardrobe update, but I really liked her and figured she'd do all that once she make some coin. She was trying to re-enter the workforce and this was not a terribly difficult job - I figured she could do the work and could use a leg up. However, no go was the answer. That was a shame. I often wondered what happened to her.
I did hire a largish woman for their Calgary office and I believe she's still there (9 years later). Nobody seemed to have a problem with her - she knew her stuff. Maybe because she was in the satellite office and the higher ups never went there?
In Vancouver everybody seems to be a health nut - jogging, rollerblading, cycling, rowing, swimming, etc., that you don't really see too many large people. When I was just in Manitoba, however, that was a different story. Hard to get out and walk when winter is 8 months a year.
What's the inference? Must we sit next to someone obese on a public conveyance to show we show no bias?
I think it might be an unconscious, hard-wired reaction, since a muscled person is not annoying to me, yet may take up more room than a regular sized person?
Must we, no. Should we act like an ass, should it happen, again no.
I kinda dint understand your question, I think, Foof...
Could you clarify?
RH
Ironically, to the peasants of Europe in the middle ages, and long after, having a fat wife was outward, visible evidence of prosperity. They gloried in having fat wives, and being fat themselves. Things change . . . no surprises.
Setanta wrote:Ironically, to the peasants of Europe in the middle ages, and long after, having a fat wife was outward, visible evidence of prosperity. They gloried in having fat wives, and being fat themselves. Things change . . . no surprises.
Yes, fat once meant prosperity. But, I don't believe we are hard-wired to like thinness either. That comes from the fashion/model industry, I believe. But, an image of strength is likely a hard-wired preference, since it will likely result in the healthiest babies in reproducing.
Foofie wrote:But, an image of strength is likely a hard-wired preference, since it will likely result in the healthiest babies in reproducing.
Absolute bosh. Just like saying good-looking people likely have good-looking babies. That's not necessarily true.