NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/feminism/6349

Text File | 1992-12-22 | 5.7 KB | 129 lines

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Path: sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!news.cso.uiuc.edu!levine
From: [e-mail] (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Re: Why are many low-income women fat? (was Re: Separate but Equal?)
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Net Noise owner)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 20:06:30 GMT
Lines: 117

[e-mail] (Rich Payne) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lenore Levine) writes:
>>[e-mail] (Rich Payne) writes:
>>
>>>How about the misconception that fat people are healthy? Most fat people
>>>that I have known have plenty of problems, their feet always hurt, they seem
>>>to catch every cold that goes around, some have back problems, etc...
>>
>>I'm fat, proud of it, healthy, and look 10 years younger than I am!

>Wonderful, I am happy for you. I am not fat, and also look a lot younger
>than I am (it seems to be about 10-12 years, people often ask when I seem
>too knowledgable and experienced my visual age, I have started asking for
>their guess as a condition for an answer), so this looks more like a
>matter of genetics. I am curious as to wether it means that one will live
>longer as well.
>

I am glad you accept that genetics has some influence, over the
development of human bodies. Unlike most feminists, I do believe
that the importance of *individual* human differences is often
underrated. And this is one of the reasons, that I am very
skeptical that one weight/height table is appropriate for all
individuals.

>>>Perhaps you are confusing 'fat' and 'healthy'. Not all fat people are
>>>unhealthy, but a greater percentage than normal are.
>>
>>Not true for people whose weight is *moderately* over the weight
>>tables. They are just as healthy as thin people, if not more so.

>A recent study showed that people who were overweight as children
>(even 20%) lived significantly fewer years than those who were not
>overweight as children, even of they later lost weight. I will
>post the abstract if I can dig it out.
>
>>True, to a certain extent, of extremely large people. But (at least
>>according to the study I read) they are no more unhealthy (on the
>>average) than people slightly under the weight tables.

>Health is a difficult thing to measure, it is much easier to measure
>sicknesses. What was it that the study used as health indicators?
>And was this done by survey?
>

I don't remember much about the particular survey, except that it was
done in Scandinavia.

If you really have doubts that some people are supposed to be
a nonstandard weight, I suggest you pose this question on sci.med.
(I know they discussed this question extensively there recently.
And they *did* come to the conclusion that not everyone is
supposed to have a weight within the tables.)

Sci.med can also provide you with the appropriate technical references.

Let me reiterate, I am *not* qualified to advance medical arguments,
any more than (I suspect) you are.

But I can speak about my own body. It feels right being fat. It would
not feel right, and I would not feel healthy, being at the weight
prescribed for me by the weight tables.

I offer as a partial explanation the fact that my ancestors came
from near the Polish-Russian border; and I understand that the
winters there make Illinois look like Hawaii!

I understand that Eastern Europeans are (on the average, statistically,
etc.) stockier than Western Europeans, who come from a region near
the ocean that has relatively mild winters.

>The problem is dieting, which never was a good idea. One needs
>to change the diet (permanantly, and to healthy foods, not starvation
>rations of water or watermelon, or whatever the diets call for).
>
Many people do change their lifestyle in a healthy manner. If they are
fat they tend to get thinner, if they are thin they tend to get
fatter. But their weight does not neccessarily change to agree with
the weight tables. There are many people whose weight would not
agree with the weight tables, without following an *unhealthy*
lifestyle.

>>What is really making me stark, raving furious about this
>>weight issue? Well, I'll be getting my Ph.D. (hopefully)
>>some time in 1994; and I plan to be job hunting next fall.
>>What are my chances of hitting some interviewers (even for a
>>very technical position) who use my supposed "unhealthiness" as
>>an excuse for not hiring me, because I'm not a babe!

>And if you do not get some job, will it necessarily be because of
>weight discrimination?

Of course not. But I understand from sci.math that appearance
discrimination against women *is* an issue. This newsgroup carried a
posting from a male mathematician. He was *extremely* upset, because,
in his role of evaluating job applications, he had received a
letter from a colleague, asking him to take on the "mission" of
finding out whether a female mathematician was cute or not!

>I can just imagine Jen Kilmer (from a previous
>post) suing for discrimination (she'd probably have better luck just
>suing for sex discrimination, she may well win even if there was none).

I do not think legal remedies are the most appropriate, in most
professional academic situations. I would
definitely like to see the cultural climate change, so disgusting
letters like the one mentioned above, would become as unfashionable as
open racism and anti-Semitism are today. I do not think the author
of the above letter, would have dared express *racist* sentiments
to an unknown colleague.

>Rich

>[e-mail]

Lenore Levine