NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/feminism/6550

Text File | 1992-12-24 | 5.8 KB | 135 lines

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!news.cso.uiuc.edu!levine
From: [e-mail] (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Re: Boycotts (was Re: Why are many low-income women fat?)
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: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 20:46:59 GMT
Lines: 123

[e-mail] (Yamanari) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lenore Levine) writes:
>>[e-mail] (Yamanari) writes:
>>
>>(Re boycott of companies that won't hire large people.)
>>
>>>    I would probably advise you that you need to take such policies
>>>    in context.  For instance, I think it's in New York, a very obese
>>>    man is suing McDonalds for not providing a table that he can
>>>    fit into.  This man is enourmous--for McDonalds to provide
>>>    proper seating for this mans physique would require them to halve
>>>    (or less) the number of seats they can fitin their restaurants.
>>>    McDonalds can seat people from 30 to 350 lb folks pretty much
>>>    fine.
>>
>>The companies I am referring to, implement these policies against
>>individuals who are at all over the weight tables. They would implement
>>them against me (average height and a size 20)!

>    I don't know what that means (I know what a size 6 is,
>    because I've sewn one, but anything else is vague).

Let me put it this way: I'm probably somewhat thinner than Roseanne
Barr, and somewhat heavier than Jackee.

>    Regardless, see below:

>> Third, take a look at the
>>>    work areas that the companies _have right now_ (I think it's
>>>    rediculous to make them rebuild) and make sure that those
>>>    (and not bigotry) aren't the underlying reason.
>>
>>How does someone my size need a special work area?

>    Someone extremely obese might need (at least) a new
>    chair, but also a new desk (to go with the chair).  This
>    isn't guesswork--I had to set up an office for my parents,
>    both of whom are over 350.

The policies are implemented against people who are *not* extremely
obese, just heavier than the weight tables; people who would not
in any way need a special work area.

>>I think you are not cynical enough. These companies are not
>>discriminating against Andre the Giant type people, but against
>>Lech Walesa and Roseanne Barr type people.

>    Also, it takes a lot to convince me of discrimination.

In many cases, these policies are a matter of public record. For
example, in the case of the systems analyst, she was explicitly
told by her contact at the employment agency that Sun would not
hire her.

>>(By the way, note the winter conditions faced by the ancestors
>>of these two individuals.)

>    You wont find any arguments from me here.  I've been
>    fighting withmy weight since childhood, and while I generally
>    win (but not in the last stressful 7 months, unfortunately)
>    I acknowledge that others do not have this problem due
>    to genetics.

>    <I take consolation in great cheek bones>

There are many medical scientists, who *now* believe that individuals
with a genetic disposition to fatness shouldn't fight it. For more
information, I suggest you post to sci.med, where there was an explicit
discussion of this subject that essentially came to the above
conclusion.

Self-discipline is a good thing, but societies may push or impose
*kinds* of self-discipline that are counterproductive in the long run.
For example, C.S. Lewis, the Christian science fiction writer, was
was not married most of his adult life. He went to enormous lengths to
fight his desires to masturbate, which he regarded as a sin. He even
avoided foods that would make him want to perform this activity.

>>>    After all this, there are alternatives that are better than
>>>    boycotts.  Publicity, media.
>>
>>>    Boycotts don't hurt anything but the employees of the company.
>>
>>I am not sure whether the boycott I described would work. But I know
>>I would not knowingly buy products from a company that refused to hire
>>people my size.

>    Better to use the media.  Heck, cross post it to enough
>    groups and you'll get it dessimated--not justin your post,
>    but in all of the crossposted "Why is this in alt.spam??"
>    posts..
>
>    There's a damn xtian who does the same thing now and then
>    with his antiabortion bits, his "chopstick culture" bits
>    and other things.

Why don't you credit me with the intelligence, to post calls for
boycotts to appropriate groups? Why do you think you're the only person
who realizes that posting to inappropriate groups doesn't win any
friends?

As long as I'm on my soapbox, I'd like to bring up another concern I
have about your postings. I think we are in agreement that there's
a problem in our culture, of young women who do not have adequate job
training. I also think we're agreed on a main solution to this
problem -- educating these women to seek job training out, before they
have children. However, your postings do disturb me in retrospect,
not because I don't essentially agree with you on these matters -- I
do -- but because of your emotional tone. I really got a feeling from
you, of disgust for these women.

I don't think disgust is appropriate in this case. I particularly
don't think it would be appropriate for me. I have a hard enough
time getting on the emotional wavelength of these women, in order
to reach them, anyway. And I don't see how to reach them and educate
them without having some empathy with them.

By the way, I would like to hear from people on this group who've worked
with teenagers, particularly female teenagers. Have you been able to
convince them that studying is important? What methods did you use?

Lenore Levine