Dress For Success! Or Not!

Every time an oppressed group manages to get their protection written into the law (like when sex discrimination became illegal at work) there is some sneaky bullshit like this to take its place.

Very true, skeptifem. I often remind myself that it makes it a sliver more obvious that it's bullshit when they have to be sneaky about it. Cold comfort, but better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.

Boy, little Jimmie Watson never ceases to amaze. Is there a genetic marker for being a douche canoe?

HULK SMASH WATSON'S THIN PRIVILEGE SPEW. PURPLE SHORTS FOR ALL!

""Whenever you interview fat people, you feel bad, because you know you're not going to hire them," Watson said."

If Watson is not going to hire 'fat people' then why does he interview them? It strikes me as a bit kinder to not give someone a chance to get hired than to give him or her the illusion of a chance.

"Executives at the banking giant called her tailored clothing "too distracting," she said. Lorenzana, who is attractive in a very Eva Longoria way, certainly looks sexy in photos posted on the New York Daily News website, but her clothing fits just fine."

She is indeed a very lovely woman, and very tastefully dressed....but describing her tailored clothing as 'too distracting' is - at best - as stupid as saying that having flowers on your desk is 'too distracting'. Sure she is good looking, and her face probably has an enchanting smile - but so freaking what. Her beauty is hardly unusual, anyone who find her appearance more distracting than 9,999 other things that he or she is encountering in a day really needs to get out and experience life more.

"In the case of Lorenzana, women at her office were anonymously quoted as saying, "She should know better,""

?!?!?!?!? Than to dress like she is pictured in the article? That is very dignified clothing, and essentially 'unisex' clothing. Perhaps the turtleneck was tailored to accommodate her physique, but there are also turtlenecks tailored to the male physique available....and the slacks look almost the same as a pair of suit-pants that a male would wear.... If a handsome man was wearing a black turtleneck with a pair of black suit pants would people whisper that 'he should know better'?

"while the men said on the record that they would go out of their way to catch glimpses of her."

How nice. And how utterly irrelevant. If they take a slightly longer path to the Conference Room (etc.) in order to maybe glance at her that is their business - but if they are neglecting their work in order to 'catch a glimpse' they are redundantly stupid idiots who are of less use to the company than Ms. Lorenzana is.

Beauty is everywhere, and even more so if you look past the superficial. Folks who freak out about the presence of a 'superficially attractive' woman are socially and psychologically immature idiots with no aesthetic sense, a lack of respect for other humans, and an inability to appreciate the intrinsically redundant nature of the phrase 'beautiful woman'.

Watson's brilliant, but god damn he's a douche.

It's ok. My law school's career services office gave a presentation in which they analogized getting a job as a lawyer to being in a fashion show. What was left of my soul probably died that day.

@prof.pedant "If Watson is not going to hire 'fat people' then why does he interview them? It strikes me as a bit kinder to not give someone a chance to get hired than to give him or her the illusion of a chance."

So it appears that he isn't discriminating? But then why would he proclaim that he does? Oh, I know. It's because it isn't a requirement to put your clothing size on your CV. Yet.

`Doesn't a guy like Jim Watson have the responsibility to make this not ugly?'' asked UC Berkeley biologist Michael Botchan, a Watson protege. ``Yes. But I cannot tell Jim Watson to change his ways.''
Son, if you can't, I sure as heck can.

Dear Jim Watson,

Although you have already made a giant ass of yourself in public, I must ask you for the good of science to please STOP. The whole world is now well aware that you are a jackass, you can stop proclaiming it publicly. Isn't there a nice island with your retirement villa on it somewhere?

Sincerely,

Big Pharma Minion

Jesus, how hard is it to understand? Somewhat attractive, but not too attractive. We donât want people thinking youâre out of our league. Definitely not fat, but not so thin that you look like a heroin addict or a refugee. And you should laugh at everything we say, or at least smile, even if its sexist or racist. And when we say something we obviously think is clever, look a little confused, not like you think itâs stupid, but like you donât quite get it, like weâre always a step or two ahead of you.

Is that so difficult?

Is that so difficult?

Oh, and always have an apron handy. And don't wear shoes.

Ah, so it was the D cup that got me all those jobs! Yes, it makes sense now. Tit flashing was clearly a more important element of the job than discussing scientific matters, because I cannot recall ever having to do actually the latter, at least not to the point of actually being listened to. And this explains why I no longer find it so easy to get jobs: I'm now middle aged and angry looking, and I don't like short skirts any more. Duh.

Witnesses at Berkeley were flabbergasted? Shocked?! Well, what rock have they been living under? He's been spouting racist and sexist nonsense for years. You cannot tell James Watson to change his ways? How about not giving him a platform for his bullshit? How about not inviting him to give a guest lecture? Seriously, what did they expect?

Well, who do we think we are, Existing While Female and shit? Jeez.

Watson's brilliant, but god damn he's a douche.

I think he's essentially turned in his Brainy Badge with this one.

If they take a slightly longer path to the Conference Room (etc.) in order to maybe glance at her that is their business

Not quite. Ogling coworkers is sexual harassment. We know when men are "going out of their way" to "glance at us" in the workplace, and it's our business too, because it affects our work. And because it's sexual harassment.

Ogling coworkers is sexual harassment.

Not by law, I'm afraid, not unless it's really very egregious (not by Title VII, anyway; maybe your state's employment discrimination statute covers it, though it's doubtful).

All right then. I'm gonna lock myself at home, cause I'm just too sexy. lol

I grew up during my mom's sexual harassment suit, I was a teenager. She documented everything right from the start(like you are supposed to), and I witnessed some of her co workers talking about the harassment from the same manager she eventually tried to sue. I think she had like 5 people including me writing affidavits for her case. It was like, groping and other really horribly blatant stuff, and she didn't get a trial. The story about women getting some big pay out because some guy looked at (or grabbed) her tits is a fantasy. If women have a 5% chance of getting a dude convicted for rape why would the odds be better at her job exactly?

I encourage every one of you to look up your employer's policy on harassment. Ogling does not count at my university, not even close. Harassment is limited to quid pro quo between a supervisor and supervisee.

Remember that foolish Donald Trump apprenticeship show? Did anyone else think that having the male contestants dressed professionally while the female contestants wore spike heels, mini-skirts, and low-necked blouses was blatently sexist--especially since Trump's second in command dressed formally and professionally?

they are redundantly stupid idiots who are of less use to the company than Ms. Lorenzana is

Yes. But how dare someone suggest that somehow it's their fault for being idiots? She MADE them do it! She has to go!

Now, now, Ladeez, lets not get our collective panties in a bunch until a man with a manly man brain comes to mansplain about why this isn't sexism, isn't a big deal, and tell us instead what to focus on. I mean, we have girly brains - def not suited to know what sexism is. Where are the men to help us!!@

Watson seems like a pig to me.

That being said, I would be reluctant to hiring an extremely overweight person simply because of their obvious inactivity, their lack of self control, and their lack of health. I would judge any race of man or a woman equally on this subject, being unhealthy isn't cool.

Citibank is retarded.

Newsflash, thegoodman: not all fat people are unhealthy, not all fat people are inactive, not all fat people lack self control. (Though, some fat people are these things, just as some thin people are too.)

In much the same vein, not all thin people are bulimic or anorexic, not all thin people are athletic, not all thin people are obsessive-compulsive about their diet. (Though some thin people are these things, just as some fat people are too.)

Just like: not all short people are "diminutive" and shy, not all heavily-muscled people are egomaniacs, not all gay men are effeminate, not all lesbians are butch, not all tunafish are silver, and not all foxes are red.

Shockingly, there exists a tremendous degree of normal variation amongst humans, just as in any other species. To think that you can judge work ethic by looking at physical features is laughable, ignorant, and just plain wrong.

That being said, I would be reluctant to hiring an extremely overweight person simply because of their obvious inactivity, their lack of self control, and their lack of health. I would judge any race of man or a woman equally on this subject, being unhealthy isn't cool.

TROOOOOOOOOOOLLLLL!!!!!

I am not trolling Cara, but the depth of your posts continue to wow us all with your intellect.

I didn't say 'slightly overweight', Ambivalent Academic, you are absolutely right that not all people fit their stereotypes.

What I did say was "extremely overweight". Would you hire a 400lb person? Seriously, you honestly make no judgments of the 500lb people you see on TV or out in public? I understand that people carrying a little extra weight could be perfectly happy with themselves and be at a weight that is comfortable for them, good for them. I am talking about people who are extremely unhealthy which is blatant by their inability to keep themselves in even moderate shape.

I refuse to accept someone for "who they are" if that person is a disgusting pig who consumes anything and everything in site and is unable to walk up a flight of stairs without stopping to take a breath. Do they have to change? No, they do whatever they want. Does that mean I should choose them to be a part of my company? Not a chance.

You seem to think that 40 extra lbs is "extremely overweight". I do not. Anything that is clinically morbidly obese is extremely overweight. They have health issues and pose a risk to their employers and if I were a highering manager, it isn't a risk I would be willing to take.

Whatever, thegoodman. If those 'out of control' people just puked it up afterwards you would have no problem hiring them. You care about the appearance of those problems, not the reality. There are shit tons of lazy thin people who do not have to control what they eat because of their high metabolisms (who have really shitty health as a result of their diet/lack of exercise). None of it has anything to do with how well someone does their job, and weight alone is a totally shitty way to predict health because of the reasons I just outlined.

They have health issues and pose a risk to their employers and if I were a highering manager, it isn't a risk I would be willing to take.

You are saying that people with health issues are a risk to a company that you would not take if you were hiring.

That is discrimination. I'd hope you would lose your job for violating the ADA. I wouldn't count on it though, sadly. Discrimination continues.

I have "health issues"* as you put it (and no, I'm not even fat!). You seem confused about the difference between "health issues" and "character flaws". Not the same.

* Chronic autoimmune disease. Yes--it it makes work hard to find and keep. Guess I'm just weak-willed and a bad risk.

Yeah, SKM, you with your autoimmune disease and me with my PTSD ...

why, if we'd both just suck it up, eat better, stop whining, and get over it, then someone would hire us and life would then be fine forever. Clearly.

Until then, we'll wallow in our weak-willed self-pity. You can continue being a bad work risk and I can continue being a welfare slut.

Also, I'm thin. Quite thin, but not too thin. Because I have anorexia. And although I look fine and act fine and am smart and often do work very well, I likewise often pass out on the job due to said anorexia.

Good job trying to judge a book by its cover, though, thegoodman.
And for the record, whenever you show up to a conversation, my heart sinks and my IQ feels like it drops twenty points. Though that may just be my heart dropping to my feet.

@SKM
Its unfortunate that you have an autoimmune disease. It doesn't change that fact that you are a risk to employers. Your risk has nothing to do with your character or your work ethic, an employee who will miss significant time from work because of health issues isn't an employee anyone would want. Its unfortunate, but the employer can't be responsible for your misfortunes.

@Skeptifem
If an employee put "bulemic" on their resume, it would hinder their ability to get hired far more than being obese. Obesity is not a "shitty" way to gauge health. It is a perfectly normal and just way to gauge the health of a newly met person. There are countless studies that show how unhealthy an obese lifestyle is. It applies to all genders and races and has little to do with economic standing. If a person is obese, you can see it when you look at them. What you CANNOT see is also a risk when hiring an employee. But that is a risk you have to take if you cant determine those risks via an interview/background check. I am not discriminating against fat people. I do not dislike them because they are fat. I would simply choose to not hire them because of their obvious character flaws combined with their health risk. Its business, its not personal.

Would you hire a drug addict to your company? How about an alcoholic? You wouldn't DARE discriminate against someone because they choose to consume copious amounts of unhealthy substances, would you?

So what do you propose that all of us ill, eating-disordered, and/or mentally traumatized people (drug addiction is basically mental trauma and often stems from other trauma such as sexual or physical abuse) DO with ourselves?

Lie down, curl up, and wait to die?

Or just "snap out of it"? Because clearly that's our problem. We just need to snap out of it.

Trust me, thegoodman, if you are capable of seeing non-penised people as human beings, if all it took to get over PTSD or an eating disorder or mental trauma was a good old "snap out of it", no one (NO ONE) would have any of those problems any more. They are no fun.

And it still doesn't address what you think SKM should do, either. Seriously. Curl up and wait to die?

thegoodman, I wish you good health. You are going to need it.

In the meantime, expand you view to ask yourself how society fares when folks who are highly educated, competent, and want to work are considered unhireable due to chronic conditions (bear in mind that 60 million Americans have chronic conditions, and you may well become one of them).

"tough shit" may be a fine personal philosophy for you, but it does little for society as a whole.

Obesity is not a "shitty" way to gauge health. It is a perfectly normal and just way to gauge the health of a newly met person.

This is factually incorrect. As are most of your points. The sooner you wipe your hard drive and start fresh, the better.

I am not trolling Cara, but the depth of your posts continue to wow us all with your intellect.

You are, indeed trolling. Also, my engineering-doing girly brain has words like "pearls" and "swine" rolling about in there, but it just...can't...quite...

They don't put it on their resume (and if they did I would hope that they could spell it correctly), that is the point. There are tons of skinnies walking around looking perfectly normal and eating freakish amounts of food who fly under your radar all the time. There are skinny folks with crappy health for other reasons that you don't notice either.

Weight is a poor indicator of health. If it was a great one there wouldn't be much need to do things like labs and vitals. It is one piece of information that has to be used in conjunction with other measures in order to be useful at all. Thin people who do not exercise or watch their diet have (predictably) horrendous cardiac health, as is indicated by things like lipid panels. A heavy person who works out and eats healthy foods is likely to have a much lower cardiac risk. If we could tell just by looking at people then bloodwork to measure these things would not be done at all. You know nothing about medicine, dude, don't pretend.

I can't freaking believe that that asshole would say that he would not hire someone with an autoimmune disease. Especially that he would say it directly to you, SKM. Considering how perfect one would have to be to deserve consideration in his world, I hope that he's a firm supporter of single-payer health care, a strong and robust welfare state, and other societal interventions to paper over (in part, because obviously none of that would resolve the problem of not being respected and of not being treated as fully human) SOME of the issues with the world he feels comfortable in.

Anyone who needs a breath a fresh air and hasn't read Jill Psmith's latest, might want to head over here for a refreshing reminder of the utter pointlessness of trolls:

http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2010/06/10/hanging-chads-of-savage-…

The key quote from thegoodman is this one @26:

I refuse to accept someone for "who they are" if that person is a disgusting pig who consumes anything and everything in site and is unable to walk up a flight of stairs without stopping to take a breath. Do they have to change? No, they do whatever they want.

Thegoodman is not speak from a place of rationality, but from a place of very visceral feeling, and that feeling is disgust. Perhaps fat is merely a symbol of unfettered appetite and people "doing whatever they want" with no self-control. Is it the fat, or the "doing what one wants" without submitting to the will of others, or the supposed of lack of self control that may lead to chaos and everything spinning out of control, that stimulates the disgust response? Maybe all of the above. Hard to say. What I do know is that you cannot logically argue someone out of their disgust response. It's almost impossible to even get them to acknowledge that the disgust response is where they are operating from, when they think that are speaking from a place of pure logica and sensibility. Even if they were able to admit that the disgust response is what's motivating them, what are they going to do? Say, okay, I'll stop being disgusted by fat people/gays/blacks/women/smelly immigrants who eat funny food and steal mah jobs? They'll say "no, this is actually disgusting, and you ought to be disgusted by it too." There is no way to win a dialogue with a person who is full of disgust, when your only weapon is logic. Unless the law and the courts and and the prisons and the civil penalties are all on your side. Then maybe you have a chance.

["If they take a slightly longer path to the Conference Room (etc.) in order to maybe glance at her that is their business"
"Not quite. Ogling coworkers is sexual harassment. We know when men are "going out of their way" to "glance at us" in the workplace, and it's our business too, because it affects our work. And because it's sexual harassment.]

So walking down a hall, glancing into an open office door or window - without changing your perfectly normal walking pace - is 'sexual harassment'?

From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/glance
glance
1 /glæns, glÉns/ Show Spelled [glans, glahns]
âverb (used without object)
1. to look quickly or briefly.
[snip]
âverb (used with object) Archaic .
5. to cast a glance or brief look at; catch a glimpse of.
[snip]
ânoun
8. a quick or brief look.
[snip]

If a glance constitutes 'sexual harassment', is it possible for someone (woman or man) to look at a woman without that look constituting 'sexual harassment'? Or does glancing at people in order to successfully navigate ones way through a crowd make a person a 'serial harasser'?

Ms. Lorenzana was reprehensibly treated, and unjustifiably fired, but nothing in the article said that she was being harassed (other than the 'talking about her behind her back' crap). Instead it looks like a bunch of immature and incompetent idiots were all in a kerfluffle because people noticed that Ms. Lorenzana was attractive.

The only way that 'sexual harassment' seems to have played a 'role' is that the immature incompetent idiots were so scared of their thoughts (or someones thoughts) about Ms. Lorenzana's attractiveness that they panicked and fired her instead of firing the 'thoughtcrimer' they were worried about. One of the many things that those self-centered fools need to learn is to not believe every thing that they think. Thinking that anyone, male or female, is so very attractive and irresistible that you would like to [censored] right here and now is only a thought, a thought that probably more than 99.999% of the time has nothing to do with reality and has essentially no chance of happening (i.e. he/she is almost always 'just not that into you', and won't be that into you no matter how charming and deserving you are). It is only a thought, and it is not a guide on how to tell people to live their lives, get over it.

(Katherine @ #8, Bingo. Watson is discriminating, but until he made those statements he _appeared_ to not be discriminating....and partly because "it isn't a requirement to put your clothing size on your CV. Yet.". But, as a 'person of size' I would prefer to not get an interview at a place that already knew they were not going to hire me than go through a farce in which I mistakenly thought I had a chance....)

I can't freaking believe that that asshole would say that he would not hire someone with an autoimmune disease. Especially that he would say it directly to you, SKM.

Well, I certainly can. Of course, real-life hiring managers are too smart to state discrimination as a reason for not hiring openly. That's one of many reasons why the Americans with Disabilities Act hasn't done as much good as it was intended to do.

Of course, the really hilarious part is that thegoodman would likely never know to discriminate against me unless I told him of my illness, because I am thin and conventionally attractive and have excellent references and am therefore apparently of good character. Of course, if he hired me on such 'false pretenses' (never mind that I am by law not required to reveal my health history in an interview) and he got even a whiff of "not-normal" health from me, he would likely fire me for withholding the vital information of what a very bad risk I am!

And so it goes.

I'm with those who are surprised that anyone surprised by Watson's antics. He's always been a dim bulb and a nasty-minded bully.

SKM, same here. I think that the small fortune taxpayers have spent on my education to make the most of my abilities means that I have an obligation to use that education and those abilities, since that's the whole reason society made such an investment in the first place. Evidently thegoodman much prefers the "screw the taxpayers" approach. Oh well, he can always make sure he personally doesn't take advantage of my work. Hey dude, just to be sure, you'd better disconnect your electricity. You might be using something that came from OMGASICKIE!

SKM, I hope that I didn't misspeak. I didn't mean that I couldn't believe it, more that it made me really angry. I should have said that, and if it seemed like I was denying or dismissing your experience, I apologize.

I can well believe that people would be that horrible. And I'm so sorry -- angry -- that people like you and my m-i-l (with an autoimmune disease) have to deal with such people.

SKM, I hope that I didn't misspeak.

Oh, not at all! I meant the "well, I certainly can" in more of an "oh, heavy sigh!" way. I got what you meant. I should have been clearer.

you'd better disconnect your electricity. You might be using something that came from OMGASICKIE!

Yup. As Zuska said, this is a matter of disgust. That's what happens when you make health a moral issue.

"I refuse to accept someone for "who they are" if that person is a disgusting pig who consumes anything and everything in site and is unable to walk up a flight of stairs without stopping to take a breath."

Huh. So, by "thegoodman", you actually mean "arrogant, judgmental, self-righteous bigot". Gotcha.

@ thegoodman: I would certainly hire someone who is overweight and qualified, but I certainly wouldn't hire someone who doesn't know the difference between "its" and "it's" and "site" and "sight". Good written communication is a real job requirement at my company. An ideal weight target is not.

O irony, thou art a jewel! I mean, James Watson ain't exactly David Tennant.

So, by the logic of the Appearance Police, now I can fire guyyyzzz who don't come to work all buff, tanned, and oiled up? I need some hawt mancandy to brighten up these dull grey cubicle walls. Stat.

And d00dz with bad combovers, can they go?

What about d00dz who chew tobacco? Can we not hire them? How about smoking? I don't want to smell cigarettes all day.

Really, this could totally brighten up my day. Of course, I would lose a bunch of damn smart colleagues, but eye candy RAWKS!

Somehow, I doubt any human being, male or female, could meet thegoodman's standards for character, appearance, and health. And if they did when he hired them, well, things change...

Yvonne: "Boy, little Jimmie Watson never ceases to amaze. Is there a genetic marker for being a douche canoe?"

Probably not, but there might be a picture of him leaping over a large predatory fish.

As for Ms. Lorenzana and her curves, what do they want her to do, hide under a burqa?

Unlike you, thegoodman, I am quite able to recognize that my personal experiences are not objective reality that applies equally to all humans. My 40 lbs. of "thesis weight" is a very different thing, which I can manage very differently, than someone else's chronic and/or hereditary illness or just plain normal healthy metabolism. Of all the antelopes in all the world, some of those antelopes are gazelles, and some of them are water buffalo. That doesn't mean that water buffalo have a failure of will that causes them not to look like gazelles.

Some of the most brilliant people I know are well over the "obesity" mark (by whichever fundamentally flawed mechanism you choose to define this term) and they are excellent at their jobs. Some of them are having a hard time getting jobs (as QC engineers at BP - jeezus, if anyone ever needed a good QC engineer, it's them) because of ignorance like yours.

I am so tired of this shit.

Also, where did I ever say that "40 lbs equals extremely overweight"? Pretty sure I didn't.

I will recall fondly thegoodman's advice during my current hiring decision-making.

PharmaMinion: We work very closely with many groups here, and BigPharma is, of course, an international company interested in hiring the best minds possible. Can you tell me about a time when you had to work in a role where communication was challenging from a personal standpoint--perhaps dealing with office politics, working with someone from a very different culture, or having to explain your work concisely to people in a completely different field?

thegoodman: It's simple, honey. I just set very high standards for people, and they can live up to them or not. Their choice. Because I'm all about respecting choices.

PharmaMinion: Um. Huh. Well, there's still 50 minutes left in the interview...I guess...do you have any questions for me about BigPharma?

thegoodman: Yeah, I think it's great that you guys make weight-loss drugs, help people get control of themselves. Could I work on any projects like that?

PharmaMinion: I don't think I can answer that in an interview, although there are certainly many publications available through PubMed if you are interested in reading more. Do you have any previous experience working on metabolic disease that's not on your CV?

thegoodman: No.

PharmaMinion: Ah. Well, how about we see if the next person on your schedule might be available early? Maybe you could go back to thinks, oh gawd, don't say "the rock you crawled out from under"...back to...uh, where are you from again?

Sadly, we do get interviewees like this. On such occasions, I have been grateful for the fact that in modern times, a reply above and beyond a short rejection letter or email isn't really expected.

Wow, I did not realize that the combination of a super-efficient metabolism, a different set of bacteria in the gut, and dietary and physical activity choices made one's character flawed!

I work for a man who would certainly cause thegoodman to cringe and wag his finger disapprovingly, since he's obese (and therefore lacks good moral character), but quite honestly there is nobody in this world I would rather work for. This man is one of the smartest people I've ever met, both academically and socially. Basically, professionally speaking, I want to be him when I grow up.

People who judge him for his size are truly missing out on a gem. He has taken me under his wing and someday I will rise in the management chain thanks to his support and what I have learned from him.

It's too bad, thegoodman -- sometimes the best people come in beauty-noncompliant packages. Take off your judgmental blinders and see what you are missing.

Appearance and morals -- isn't that also what was at stake in the CitiBank case? Her very appearance indicated that she was either too slutty or too unavailable. Both of which, of course, are moral failings for women.

And body weight is no different. The tabloids have images of "shockingly heavy" stars and also "who is anorexic?" spreads. There is no way to escape the weird (perhaps Christian influenced?) idea that our bodies -- no matter what they are -- are dirty, sinful, indicators of inadequacy, etc. (Women's bodies, of course, most of all.) As Zuska's title points out, there really is no way to succeed. To do our bodies "right."

(Yes, some people have the privilege to get very close to the ideal body that has nothing "wrong" with it, so not everyone is as pulled between different demands for how they "do" their bodies; however, I wonder if there really is anyone who can actually pull it off perfectly? I suspect not, though I could be wrong.)

On a little tangent, I heard on TV that CitiBank (?) had 12% female executives. However, 45% of the let go executives were female. Given the increase in female participation in various professions, it seems likely that a large portion of female employees are new hires. If so, females will suffer disproportionately when the "last hired, first fired" principle is applied. If that principle is applied in a knee jerk fashion, how one dresses probably doesn't have much effect.

Somehow, I doubt any human being, male or female, could meet thegoodman's standards for character, appearance, and health.

Except for his imaginary wife, I'm sure.

Mr Goodman also never (of course) showered us with his wisdom about what "unhealthy" people (by his standards, every person) should DO.

Apparently either lay down on our mats by the side of the road and hold out our hats to the more evolutionarily fit while we wait to die, or go on welfare.

And something tells me he neither knows exactly how welfare works, nor supports its use.

Sorry, thegoodman. We sickies are gonna keep on a-workin' out here.

Question for fellow sickies: Is failure to disclose an illness seen as ... a type of lie?

(I am having trouble with apartments right now, as I had a PTSD flashback and my roommates feel I "lied" to them for not telling them that I had PTSD. Although my flashbacks directly effect only me, if I fail to disclose my PTSD to future apartment-mates, am I basically lying by omission?
And is it the same with other problems in the workplace?)

"Say, okay, I'll stop being disgusted by fat people/gays/blacks/women/smelly immigrants who eat funny food and steal mah jobs? They'll say "no, this is actually disgusting, and you ought to be disgusted by it too." There is no way to win a dialogue with a person who is full of disgust, when your only weapon is logic."

You cannot seriously believe that extremely obese people have no control of there situation. I have nothing at all against gays/blacks/women/ or immigrants. I do however have something against people who knowingly live unhealthy lifestyles because they know that society will support them when they have eaten themselves into a will chair or the emergency room. They have no respect for their own bodies and no respect for anyone else's. Extremely obese people are not a minority and to imply I am grouping them with minorities is insulting to me and yourself (as a woman).

You nailed it, I am definitely disgusted by extremely fat people (not "heavy" people) because there is not excuse for it. I am equally disgusted by drug users, child molesters, and other people that lack the ability to control their desires and in turn cause harm to others or themselves. Why am I being demonized for asking that people show some restraint in their life?

Someone asked what I think a "healthy" person is (albeit facetiously). The answer is simp, someone who cares about their own health. Eat moderate amounts of food, and exercise occasionally. That's it. Its not asking much and the results are 100% effective. 400-500lb people do neither of these 2 things and I find it impossible to respect a person who does not respect their own bodies. As an employer, I wouldn't hire a person who had so little respect for such an important aspect of their life.

*sorry for the double post

"[Obesity is an indicator of an unhealthy person]This is factually incorrect. As are most of your points. The sooner you wipe your hard drive and start fresh, the better."

You couldn't be more wrong. Obesity is a perfectly legitimate determining factor for an unhealthy person. Obesity is tied to dozens of detrimental medical conditions. If you truly believe that an obese person is healthy, you should study some of the medicine behind what I am saying.

http://www.webmd.com/diet/guide/what-is-obesity

they know that society will support them when they have eaten themselves into a will chair

What's a "will chair"? Hey, maybe if I had one, I wouldn't be sick! You know, since it's just a matter of will and all.

If you truly believe that an obese person is healthy

Which obese person? They are not all the same. Some are healthy, some are not.

I take it you would never hire a smoker either.

In any case, I think the joke would be on me if I were to give you any more attention.

@58: "tied to" is a correlative phrase. Like all research done on humans, the studies that support a "link" between obesity and choose-your-favorite-medical-condition are correlation studies. Correlation =/= Causation. The trends reported say NOTHING about whether obesity is a cause or an effect of the "related" medical conditions. And, of course, they say even less than nothing about obese people who are perfectly healthy. I suggest you take a statistics course.

"What's a "will chair"? Hey, maybe if I had one, I wouldn't be sick! You know, since it's just a matter of will and all."

Haha, that was a boneheaded typo. It was late...

Since we are now arguing weather or not being obese is healthy or unhealthy, it is very clear to me that most of you are in fact gender feminists. If I said the sky was blue, you would say I am a lying man and the sky is more of a blue-ish green.

I am pro-equity feminism. I am pro individualist feminism. Because I have a penis, I am Satan in the eyes of you gender feminists so I am always in a no win situation.

You want to talk about disgust vs logic? I said that obese people are unhealthy and pose a risk to potential employers (a completely true and logical argument). A few of you go on to say that obesity is not a sign of unhealthiness (completely illogical) and employers have no right to judge future employees based on their appearance (also, completely illogical).

I didn't say heavy people are incapable, I didn't even say fat people are incapable, I simply said that obese people show character flaws to their interviewers. Will those character flaws hinder there ability to perform well at work? Maybe, maybe not. If they are standing next to a more fit yet equally qualified person, who would you choose to hire? Professionalism is important in any job and not taking care of your body is unprofessional.

"Hey all you women who are feminists! UR doin' rongz!!"

d00d - the clue is in the name.

PS - if you're all about individualist wtfever, how come you lump all fat people into the "unhealthy" category? If you really are a feminist, what gives with all the judging people on their appearances? Surely you must have encountered the arguments for how this is harmful to people in all your feminist studies.

So, in addition to being an insufferable bigot, he's also a condescending mansplainer. LOL of course.

Of course women who've been feminists since before his blow up wife came in the mail are doing feminism wrong - they don't agree with him! And, since he knows fucking nothing about feminism and weight issues, we're clearly cKKKKRRRAAZZZZZYyYY if we don't take his totally uninformed, obviously pulled from his ass opinion as gospel truth.

Thanks, thecrapboy, for the belly laugh. Really. I love watching ignorant bigots dig themselves in deep and then decide to try for China.

"I am pro-equity feminism. I am pro individualist feminism. Because I have a penis, I am Satan in the eyes of you gender feminists so I am always in a no win situation."

LOL. Just saw this. yes, it's your penis that makes us roll our eyes at you. that's totally it. It's not your ignorance, your dishonesty, your condescension, your hilariously inept mansplaining or your arrogance. Nah! It's your penis! We craazzzzzzyyyy feminists just hate penises!!!

You're the douchebag gift that just keeps on giving.

If they are standing next to a more fit yet equally qualified person, who would you choose to hire? Professionalism is important in any job and not taking care of your body is unprofessional.

The stats you have supplied are population studies. The scenario you posit is about individuals. You cannot generalize a population study to individuals, because individuals vary and do not have to be anywhere near the average for their particular group. In your example, there is no legal way to determine if the obese individual is that way because of a "character flaw" instead of a metabolic disorder, thyroid condition, genetic predisposition, or medication side-effect. Likewise, for all you know the "more fit" individual could be someone who never exercises, eats junk food all day (with the help of a fast metabolism), cheats on his girlfriend, slacks off at work, steals from the offering plate, or has any of countless other character flaws which aren't readily visible. You just don't know!

Just in case anyone out in the audience *is* actually scratching their heads saying "how come feminists are pro-fatties?", it's definitely an issue that affects men and women jaw-droppingly differently.

A recent article looked at lost earnings from obesity and mentioned a gender effect. Here's what I think of as the money quote:
"If the assumptions for this model hold true, Millennial US women will earn an average of $956 billion less due to obesity during their lifetime, whereas Millennial men will earn an average of $43 billion less. The overall impact of obesity on the aggregate lifetime earnings of Millennial men and women is close to one trillion dollars.

The enormous disparity of this impact on lifetime earnings between men and women is largely due to the much larger wage penalties payed by obese women compared to obese men and exist despite the fact that womenâs labour participation rates and earnings tend to be less than menâs."

LOL. Just saw this. yes, it's your penis that makes us roll our eyes at you. that's totally it. It's not your ignorance, your dishonesty, your condescension, your hilariously inept mansplaining or your arrogance. Nah! It's your penis! We craazzzzzzyyyy feminists just hate penises!!!

Endor, he's on to us.

(After all, everybody knows that two heads are better than one. We must just be envious).

PS - if you're all about individualist wtfever, how come you lump all fat people into the "unhealthy" category? If you really are a feminist, what gives with all the judging people on their appearances? Surely you must have encountered the arguments for how this is harmful to people in all your feminist studies.

AA FTW. Also SKM is right, he's too stupid to even be a good hackeysack.

This is yet another situation where dozens of words have been put into my mouth and countless assumptions have been made about me.

There is no excuse on earth for being extremely obese. Some people may have circumstances that make it more difficult for them to maintain a healthy weight, like many of you have pointed out. Does this mean those individuals should be allowed to just toss their responsibility to be healthy out the window? I don't think it does.

"It's not your ignorance"
I have learned a lot about privilege, feminism, and equality in the past few weeks since first reading the blog and I am learning more all of the time.

"your dishonesty"
I have been dishonest about nothing. This point is just confusing and you seem to be attempting to undermine my posts by attacking my character which from the information you have in front of you, is actually very honest.

"your condescension"
I may condescending at times, but I have a long way to go before I reach the heights of condescension that many of seem to have attained long ago.

"your hilariously inept mansplaining"
The entire use of the word mansplaining reinforces my gender feminist claims. Society is to blame for the inequities between men and women, many (most) women willingly participate in this inequity and a word like mansplaining places all of the blame on men along and dodges the bigger issues.

"your arrogance."
Most of what I have said is simply my opinion. They are neither better nor worse than your own opinions and there are numerous people on both sides of the issues we are discussing. If I seem arrogant by posting factual data that supports my claims that obesity is detrimental to healthy, then continue assuming I am arrogant and continue fueling the obesity epidemic in our country that is hurting us all.

You're a moron.

That is all.

"and a word like mansplaining places all of the blame on men alone and dodges the bigger issues"

No, 'mansplaining' is a very clearly defined term for a particular situation in which gendertyping and gender assumptions are the determining factors in interpersonal conduct revolving around discussion of technical or traditionally masculine interests, or situations in which opinions of men are accorded value above equivilant (sometimes identical and previously given) opinions of females.

The blogs that have used 'mansplaining' have had to repeatedly explain and re-explain exactly what they mean by 'mansplaining' - almost exclusively to men.

It clearly identifies male privilege and gender assumptions of competance as being so endemic and systemic as to impact directly on interpersonal and group dynamics in everyday situations, in all forms of relationships.

If you honestly don't think there are situations where females are assumed to be incompetant unless proven otherwise, even by otherwise 'modern' guys, then I can only conclude you have led an abnormal or sheltered life. Or you're incompetant.

This is just deja vu now. Kindly piss off and stop making such a bad name for us blokes.

thegoodman- there are countless 'excuses' for being obese. Work in medicine for a year d00d, then get back to me about how fat is all voluntary and controllable.

Hell, we don't even know how much control any of us have over our behavior anyway. Go ahead- try to prove free will (to you, please don't inflict the arguments on all of us). You can't. It is just something you assume exists because you feel like it has to. Entire systems, like your moral judgment, and the criminal justice system, hinge on the crucial assumption of complete control of behavior. We really have no clue.

I am pro-equity feminism. I am pro individualist feminism.

We'd better quit now. GoodD00d is not merely a feminist ally -- no, he IS feminism, specifically pro-equity (with what "equity" is defined, of course, by himself, not by biased women who feel that fat people deserve "equity" as well) and pro-individualist (and of course "the individual" is usually defined as the "default" person -- white, male, cis, able-bodied, reasonably attractive, etc.).

If you doubt that "individualism" is so defined, just look at Arizona's new policy against ethnic studies classes, which specifies that they don't want to focus on "ethnic groups" but on the history of individuals. And by that, of course, they mean that they want a history program in which one week lumps together the history of women, blacks, and Latin@s (if we're lucky!) and points out that Harriet Tubman, Martin Luther King Jr., and Rosa Parks were totally cool! Then after that week they can go back to all the other individuals who made our country great (without, of course, any assistance from unpaid work by women and PoC or theft from Native populations). Sorry for the rant.

But "individual" is an interesting term, because it sounds so innocuous, but it is often used to dismiss the concerns of anyone but white, cis, het, middle-to-upper-class, able-bodied men, each of the latter of whom, is, of course, an individual, while everyone else is just a representative of some "group." Hence -- all fatties are alike, all women are alike, all PoC are alike....

Since your comment merely reinforced what I already said about you (and thanks for that, btw), only this needs comment:

"a word like mansplaining places all of the blame on men along and dodges the bigger issues. "

This is an outright lie, as is easily proven by a quick scroll down on this very site. Thanks for proving, beyond a doubt, that you're a dishonest, self-obsessed bigot.

@Dedj: just one minor point. You use "men" and "females" in the same sentence, and "guys" and "females" in another sentence. This may seem like hair-splitting, but that's dehumanizing language. It's "men" and "women", or "guys" and "gals", "girls", "dames", etc. If you're going to use "females", pair it with "males". And that usage is best saved for research (IMO). Generally, "female" is an adjective.

It is a very common habit to pair "men" with "females" in conversation, (even my 8-year-old nephew has picked it up), so you are in plentiful company. If you stop to think about why it's so common, you may realize that it's related to society's long-standing tradition of treating women like livestock.

I realize that lots of folks think of "females" as handy because it covers women and girls, but one is better off just saying "women and girls", or when in doubt for a mixed group, just stick with "women".

Other than that, I agree with your comment--thanks!

If you doubt that "individualism" is so defined, just look at Arizona's new policy against ethnic studies classes, which specifies that they don't want to focus on "ethnic groups" but on the history of individuals. And by that, of course, they mean that they want a history program in which one week lumps together the history of women, blacks, and Latin@s (if we're lucky!) and points out that Harriet Tubman, Martin Luther King Jr., and Rosa Parks were totally cool!

WTF, did they really say that MLK was an example of someone without a history that could be note worthy to law enforcement?? The FBI seemed to think he was worth surveillance.

http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/king.htm

They followed him around and made a shit ton of reports.

What are the bigger issues being dodged by the cute term "mansplaining"?

Here's a few:

1.) that some men really do have complete contempt for women's knowledge and experience
2.) that some men can't really believe that a woman might know more about [X] than they do
3.) that some men show an utter disregard for the full humanity of women, believing and acting as if women are a "second sex" -- secondary, Other, different, hysterical, unreliable, confused, ignorant, childish
4.) that these men feel entitled to explain to women NOT ONLY the things that these men actually do know well BUT ALSO the things that the women are more truly experts in, be it anything from nuclear physics to a woman's own memories of her childhood (depending upon the specific individuals involved)
5.) that this kind of behavior drives women crazy, because we know the beliefs upon which it is based -- and because we have experienced it daily, including from the men we care about most, and it is a continuous and frustrating reminder that SOME MEN (said group to be determined by their actions, not by intent or by the "feminism" they say they represent) have absolutely no idea that women are indeed full human beings with intelligence, experience, and expertise.

It's most obvious, perhaps, when some 18 year old guy tries to tell a female professor that he knows her subject better than she does. But when a man decides to explain to a woman her own experience that's when "mansplaining" comes with the implication that men ultimately are the owners, experts, and arbiters of women's bodies, experiences, and lives -- and that's when it really makes me, personally, mad.

In my opinion, saying "mansplaining" does dodge the bigger issues by presenting such a disturbing phenomenon in rather cute terms. But really, would anyone actually want to have to say outright "explaining in such a way that he shows utter contempt for the autonomy, intelligence, and worth of a woman"? And GoodD00d, would you really want to hear it all the time?

And if you're an equity feminist -- thus believing that equality should be the goal, which implies that you believe women are not completely equal yet -- then if women are, as a class, underprivileged, what class is, as a group, privileged? Men. Thus when a man explains to a woman something that she knows better than he does, that is an example of the exercise of a particular type of privilege. A privilege that is gendered, granted to males, and denied to females. If you don't believe that men, as a class, are privileged and women, as a class, are denied those privileges, why even call yourself a feminist?

I would say that, if nothing else, thegoodman has at least served a purpose by clearly outlining mainstream beliefs about health, morality, fatness, and feminism, except that we don't need the lesson because we already know!

I notice "thegoodman" is still using electricity, and thus benefiting from the work of someone so morally bankrupt as to have a medical condition. Oh dear. How shameful.

"And if you're an equity feminist -- thus believing that equality should be the goal, which implies that you believe women are not completely equal yet -- then if women are, as a class, underprivileged, what class is, as a group, privileged? Men."

Yes. White men are privileged. You left out the racial point, like many feminists do. Lets summarize my views quickly and then try to decide why I am a liar bigot as many of you have described me.

I know that white males are privileged.

I know that equality is not present and all of us should work to make it more present with the ultimate goal of absolute equality.

I sincerely believe that women are my academic, intellectual, professional, etc.. equal.

If a woman is more successful than I am, it is simply because she is better at whatever she does than me, she also likely had to jump through more hoops than I would have had to jump through to attain the same level of success, so not only is she more successful, she is also probably a harder worker.

What exactly makes me a bigot again? Everything I have said supports my views. Everything that doesn't has been assumed about me or extrapolated from my sometimes vague claims.

"I notice "thegoodman" is still using electricity, and thus benefiting from the work of someone so morally bankrupt as to have a medical condition"

WTF are you talking about. I have never said anything even remotely similar to this in any way, shape or form. I know its a good time to bash me and "make an manxample" of me, but doing so dishonestly is ridiculous. Bash me for my ignorance, but please stop making things up just because you think its fun to jump on the pile.

Here is where I got my definitions of equity and gender feminism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_and_gender_feminism

Here is where I got my definition of individualist feminism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualist_feminism

I also want to point out that extremely obese people are not a minority. Being grossly overweight is not a natural condition for 99% of the people who are morbidly obese. It is very simply the result of calories in vs. calories out. They consume far too many calories in a day to maintain a healthy weight.

Similar to the way that an alcoholic consumes far too much alcohol in a day to remain sober. Many people may have the predisposition to be an alcoholic (there are hereditary links to alcoholism) but that doesn't mean they should have an excuse when they show up to work drunk as hell.

People who are hereditarily predisposed to be obese need to show extra restraint when consuming food. They need to be more active than a person who doesn't have their disadvantage and they need to consume less calories. Why do these people get a free pass when alcoholics do not? I don't think they should get a free pass.

"Thegoodman", you stated quite clearly that I am a risk, therefore should not be working. Naturally, then, you would not want to be using the results of my oh-so-risky work sanctioned by an employer who chooses such sub-par employees. So turn off your electricity. You are very likely using my work as we speak.

"therefore should not be working."

This assumption isn't logical at all. All employees have certain risk factors involved. My wife is a medical doctor, there is a risk that I may choose to simply stop working any day because we could live on a single income. You should be working. You have the right to work as much as anyone does. I just think that an employer should have the right to weigh out the advantages and disadvantages of any employee, and if an employer thinks that your qualifications exceed the risk, terrific. If not, move on to the next opportunity. I never said anything about anyone that is obese or with a medical condition shouldn't work, I simply said it is a risk to be evaluated during an interview.

Medical conditions that prevent you from working your obligated hours of work per week make you a risk. This isn't an opinion and it isn't bigoted, it is a fact.

"Do you want employees that sign up for 40 hrs a week but can only work 30 hrs a week?"

What sane employer would say yes to this question? If all of your employees get paid for 40 hrs of work each week, why in the hell would an employer choose an employee that can only work 30 hours yet still receive 40 hours of pay? It has nothing to do with women, discrimination, or any other factor, businesses exist to make money. Employees that pose a risk to not showing up to work are high risk employees and will most likely not be chosen if an equally qualified candidate does not have that risk.

Medical conditions that prevent you from working your obligated hours of work per week make you a risk. This isn't an opinion and it isn't bigoted, it is a fact.

As far as I know, a person's weight is not considered a "medical condition".

I just think that an employer should have the right to weigh out the advantages and disadvantages of any employee, and if an employer thinks that your qualifications exceed the risk, terrific.

Title I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended (ADA) prohibits employment discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in the private sector, and in state and local governments and Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities who work in the federal government.

Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) prohibits employment discrimination based on genetic information about an applicant, employee, or former employee.

So, no, thegoodman, the employer does not have some unfettered right to "weigh out" (nice choice of words) the advantages and disadvantages of some prospective employees medical conditions. If you are using someone's weight as a proxy to determine if they are harboring some disability or illness so that you can discriminate against them in hiring or other covered employment practices, then, douchenozzle, you are breaking federal law.

Or if, as I suspect and stated upthread, you are just disgusted by people carrying a few extra pounds, because you believe in the Almighty Power of Self Will To Control Uncontrollable Lusts And Desires That Other Subhumans Are Subject To But Not Me, there's no point in trying to carry on a conversation with you.

"Or if, as I suspect and stated upthread, you are just disgusted by people carrying a few extra pounds, because you believe in the Almighty Power of Self Will To Control Uncontrollable Lusts And Desires That Other Subhumans Are Subject To But Not Me, there's no point in trying to carry on a conversation with you."

Bingo. i'd take it a step further and say that it's most likely exclusively (or very nearly exclusively) women who get these lectures about how their looks are an affront to his tender privileged bigot opinions. You know, cuz he *cares* so much about their health.

I wonder if there are any pictures online of the obviously physically perfect and totally healthy the-so-totally-not-even-remotely-good-bigot

They have health issues and pose a risk to their employers and if I were a highering (sic) manager, it isn't a risk I would be willing to take.

Right, so clearly my employers don't meet your standards of conduct, so clearly you should not be using the product of such people. So quit already. Turn off your electricity.

If my, or anyone's, body offends thegoodman, a simple solution is available: he can look away. If that means he spends a lot of time looking at his own shoes, it's still his choice.

This would also give them time to consider the difference between their own shoes, which they can choose for aesthetic reasons (assuming that they have enough money that the choice isn't down to whatever is cheapest at Payless or the charity shop), and actual human beings, who do not exist for their entertainment.

Thanks, Zuska, for the reminder that at least for now there are protections in place that would prevent GoodD00d's world from becoming a reality. Because the ultimate implications of a world in which there were no consequences for businesses that discriminated against disabled or otherwise marginalized prospective employees would be that such people would find it increasingly difficult to become employed. He says cheerfully "move on to the next opportunity" when addressing someone who might have trouble finding "the next opportunity" if it weren't for social and legal pressure for businesses to do exactly the opposite of what you advocate.

Ignorance caused by unexamined privilege.

"Ignorance caused by unexamined privilege."

In this case, ignorance seems to benign a word. He has stated that he see nothing wrong with denying a specific group of people the means to make a living simply because he's decided, sans anything but his own belief in his superiority, that they don't deserve it. This is sinister and cruel in addition to being ignorant. If he's also the sort of bigot that is against social programs, he's really advocating a much more sinister reality.

Actually, in my case it's a great way to sort out the employers who are not worth having. I can't help snickering when those who employ bigots suddenly find they can't get the talent they need because we've all gone elsewhere with less bigotry.

(That should read if it weren't for social and legal pressure for businesses to do exactly the opposite of what HE advocates. Sorry.)

Yeah, Endor, what you said. He's all for it when it works in his favor (anyone somehow unlike what he thinks he is must be less worthy of a job than he is), but when his position works against him, suddenly he's barfing up the loopholes instead of maintaining his principles by turning off his electricity already.

Again, many words put into my mouth.

"you are just disgusted by people carrying a few extra pounds"
I have continually used the words EXTREMELY OBESE over and over again on purpose. Extreme obesity is akin to alcoholism and drug addiction and equally detrimental to one's health.

"The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) makes it unlawful to discriminate in employment against a qualified individual with a disability."

If that individual is incapable of performing their duties due to their condition, they are not a qualified individual.

"Right, so clearly my employers don't meet your standards of conduct, so clearly you should not be using the product of such people. So quit already. Turn off your electricity."

Apparently your disability doesn't prevent you from performing the duties of your job. Wonderful, terrific, congratulations. You situation is not one we are discussing.

In this case, ignorance seems to benign a word.

I agree. Given that he demanded that we only address his ignorance rather than the other character flaws that he's been demonstrating on this blog, I wanted to frame my statement in terms of ignorance. The ignorance caused by unexamined privilege is, I think, the foundation from which it becomes acceptable to consider entire groups of people sub-human and thus undeserving of respect -- or empathy.

And I suppose it's not only the ignorance but the investment in one's own privilege that leads one to see the Other as less-than-human in order to avoid recognizing one's own privileged position. It's pretty damning that he compared his own situation:

All employees have certain risk factors involved. My wife is a medical doctor, there is a risk that I may choose to simply stop working any day because we could live on a single income.

...to that of someone who poses a "risk" to their employers because of something that is entirely beyond the employee's control. I don't believe that obesity is entirely "calories in, calories out" but even if it is thegoodman has stated that he also sees no problem with a company refusing to hire someone with a chronic condition like RA or MS etc. And this is, in his mind, comparable to the fact that he might seem to be a risky hire to an employer because he doesn't actually need to earn a living, and thus might quit.

What a large quantity of unexamined privilege.

Thegoodman- You are claiming to know things that scientists are really far from knowing. You have no evidence that "99%" are fat because their eating habits don't fit with what you consider good nutrition. Then you used the naturalistic fallacy. Metabolism is the sum of ALL catabolic and anabolic processes inside the human body. I mean jesus dude, look at how complicated the "simplified" version of CELL (as in ONE cell) metabolism is:

http://www.exrx.net/Images/Biochemical/Simplified.gif

We don't have the big picture figured out at all. People are trying to sort it out. Genuine curiosity about the truth is what drives that sort of science. You are obviously not genuinely interested in finding out how anything actually works.

You just don't know what you are talking about. It is ok, we cannot all be experts in everything. Let go of the superiority you so enjoy by pretending to know things you don't, because you should feel like a fool for going on at length about stuff you know absolutely nothing about.

Actually, "thegoodman", I am exactly who you've been talking about, as your own words make clear: "They have health issues and pose a risk to their employers and if I were a highering (sic) manager, it isn't a risk I would be willing to take." I have health issues, therefore my employer does not live up to your standards, therefore you should not dirty yourself by using anything we produce.

All your BS about being able to perform the job is just backtracking so that you don't actually have to live up to the repercussions of your own statements, which would involve turning off your electricity already.

If a company is hiring a crane operator, they certainly have the right to not hire someone with MS.

If a company is hiring someone to work in Accounts Payable, they have no right to not hire someone simply because they have MS (morally or under federal law).

I am not saying that someone whose spouse earns a large income has the same disadvantages as someone with a debilitating disease, I am not actually insane. I am saying that in the eyes of an employer any and all risk that might make an employee less attractive to the position must be considered.

Many (most) jobs have some sort of physical requirement that must be met. If you job is painting and the company interviewing you has 1000 ladders all rated for 350lbs, but you weigh 500 lbs, should that painting company be required to not consider your weight in the hiring process? This was a rhetorical question, if you said yes you are crazy.

"I don't believe that obesity is entirely "calories in, calories out" but even if it is..."

It is. It is a fact. It is also a fact that obesity is unhealthy and leads to countless health problems. If you choose to not believe it, it doesn't make it not true.

And, "Thegoodman," your choosing to believe it doesn't make it true, either. Its truth or nontruth is independent of opinion. Unfortunately for you, you are doing nothing but spouting off opinionated talking points that are not backed up by science.

Somebody feed "thegoodman" a tapeworm and an overdose of thyroxin.

Also, sorry for responding to Thegoodman. I just realized how off-topic his bloviating is and remembered how interesting the original topic was.

"not backed up by science."

Google Obesity and read the first 20 links. Most of them are scientific references that show the negative effects of obesity.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/weightloss/2010-06-15-dietaryguidel…

This particular article title will hopefully get your attention.

"It is. It is a fact. It is also a fact that obesity is unhealthy and leads to countless health problems. If you choose to not believe it, it doesn't make it not true."

LOL. I guess by "facts" he means whatever Dr. Oz tells him are facts. Because there are no facts, as they are traditionally defined, in anything he's said.

That said, I would love for this pompous bigot to go tell the far more intelligent people at Shapely Prose about his "facts". I'd love to watch the evisceration he'd receive. They would def show him what use his "facts" are to reality.

O.M.G. he's using USA TODAY as his source. LOL.

This is a class issue as well. But I suppose Mr. White Straight Well off Male Privilege here will argue with that too.

Ah, yes, the peer-reviewed reportage of USA Today.

I said "not backed up" for a reason. The problem here is not mine, for not paying "attention." There are also many scientific references that show no appreciable negative effect of obesity on health, and some that show a positive effect. I am not going to use this space to argue this point with you. I suggest that you Google "fat acceptance" and familiarize yourself with some of the more reputable blogs on the subject. Certainly your knee-jerk reaction will be to say that any blog that bills itself as a fat acceptance site is untrustworthy, but you will in fact find there scientific citations, and discussion among actual fat scientists (scientists who are fat). No, I'm not going to name those sites for you, because I don't want to feel responsible for anything you might say there. And the search will do you good.

Your continued insistence that fat people need to be blamed and that it's reasonable to penalize them (by not hiring them) for being fat is tiresome and a far, far more pedestrian and uninformed opinion than you seem to realize. Please note that next time you explain weight gain and weight loss as "calories in/calories out," this is the very definition of a cliche. Human beings are not Bunsen burners.

If it was calories in vs calories out then the type of food eaten would not have any effect, and it does. You can look up "rabbit starvation" and other macro-nutrient deficiencies whenever you want, if you don't believe me. There is a mysterious correlation with midsection fat as well (where people who carry their weight elsewhere seem to not have the cardiac/insulin resistance problems linked with fat in geneeral). So where your fat forms is somehow relevant, and the cause of fat forming in different sections of the body rather than others is also not well understood. If you end up using your calories now or storing them (in the various forms that different fuels can be stored in, it isn't just fat) is also a matter of personal biochemistry. That also determines how able your body will be to absorb nutrients. There are several separate hormonal sequences associated with digestion and eating, not to mention things like hunger/satiety and behavior. The baseline of calories out for different people is extremely diverse and does not reflect anything about their character. Hell, it doesn't even tend to stay the same from hour to hour. Most people do experience a slow decline over time, making weight gain almost a certainty. How able a person is to form skeletal muscles is another big complicated biochemical mess of factors to sort out, and can be a factor in obesity (or not, for some people). How much this has to do with genetics is not certain. Thyroid hormones can be a cause of obesity, but a person needs health insurance and money to investigate that as a cause of their weight gain, unless the doctor just tells them to eat less (many do). People who are obese are much more likely to lack those things. Cushing syndrome causes obesity. Certain kinds of steroids cause obesity. Contrary to popular belief, some times cancer causes bodily changes that result in obesity rather than waif body types. And like I mentioned before, this whole time your cells are doing all kinds of crazy shit to glucose to create ATP for energy, and other cells are building up tissue at the same time, so that the balance is in constant motion and is freakishly complex. Any person could starve themselves to death (or down to your standards), but that does not mean they have self control or motivation or anything else. I know that when I was a dieter I started having problems where I would get random infections and any cuts or scrapes I got would take ages to heal. My white blood cell count was fucked up, and my crit wasn't in the problematic range but was way lower than it is now (went from 37 to 43). I felt like shit. I was eating healthy, but not nearly enough. My lab work looks about a thousand times better since I quit dieting about a year ago, and my blood pressure/cardiac risk/diabetes risk has not changed. These numbers represent actual risk in conjunction with each other. Weight is only one number. Though the screening process may be prompted by weight, only a supremely lazy doctor would announce risk based on obesity alone.

There are risks associated with literally every body type imaginable. Obesity has a correlation with cardiac problems and diabetes. That does not mean everyone who is obese will develop those problems. It does not mean that just being obese by itself causes those problems. It does not mean that non obese people do not suffer these problems. The correlation of cardiac risk with eating well and exercise is much more meaningful than the obesity one (and NO, exercise and healthy food does not prevent obesity). Obesity and overweight people are actually much more likely to SURVIVE their cardiac episode than their skinny counterparts. People of normal weight tend to not do as well in general on hospital stays. Almost no one loses weight and keeps it off for more than 5 years (I think it sits at 2%), so unless 98% of people are just irreversibly fucked up and lazy there is more to this story than you are willing to admit. In addition to the things I mentioned above, thin people are also much more likely to have bone density issues as they age. That also correlates with being white and female, but I bet you wouldn't cop to descriminating on those grounds.

You wanna know why USA Today doesn't print that? Because the science explanation is boring and uncertain and it makes it harder for advertisers to sell food OR dieting aids.

"eating well and exercise"

Most people will not be obese if they do these 2 things. There are certainly exceptions to this but most people assume they are an exception because they don't have to stop eating McDonalds every day.

The USA Today article is just an example. It is humorous that I am made out to be a moron for posting a reputable newspaper article and then told to read some pro-fat people blogs as an authentic reference. As I said in the post, there are countless scientific and medical references that directly link obesity with many health issues that can be found quickly and easily.

Not for 1 second have I said that thin people are necessarily healthy or that a few extra pounds makes a person unhealthy. The only thing I have said is that being extremely obese puts you at an enormous health risk when compared to a person who is not. As I have said before, my wife is a medical doctor and she is very interested in nutrition as well as exercise. We both work out regularly, neither of us ever "diet", but we do eat healthy food and don't take any supplements. Neither of us is skinny but we wouldn't be described as fat either. I have actually read a lot about health and nutrition and have a surprisingly good grasp on a healthy diet an lifestyle for a bigoted 27 yr old white male.

I realize this is a foolish thing to do, but for some reason feel compelled to do it anyway:

Thegoodman, ask your MD wife about the peptide hormone shifts that result from Roux-en-Y vs. lap band vs. biliopancreatic diversion vs. jejunoileal bypass vs. sleeve gastrectomy + duodenal switch and their various effects on weight loss compared to cholesterol, heart risk and inflammation markers.

Hint: If she doesn't know, she may wish to take a CME or three on the subject. It's kinda important.

Also, son, google "Dunning-Kruger" while you're reading. Then feel free to come back here and tell actual scientists who work on this subject all about why "diet and exercise" will work for everybody, perfectly, every time.

You're welcome.

*applause for Big Blue* I hardly expect such a pompous bigot to recognize when his ass has been handed to him (since he clearly hasn't recognized it yet), but well done anyways.

+++

"I have actually read a lot about health and nutrition and have a surprisingly good grasp on a healthy diet an lifestyle for a bigoted 27 yr old white male."

Better show us some pictures. Submit yourself to the same treatment you dole out on other, Mr. big brave privileged douche. Let us critique your looks and make asinine sweeping statements based on nothing but what we decide at that moment must be true because we think its true, bigot. Make with the proof that you're so incredibly perfect you get to decide, despite having absolutely no understanding of the topic, who's healthy and who isn't, or who works out and who doesn't, etc.

It's amusing that you blunder on totally oblivious to how wrong you are. Of course an inadequate, shallow source is totally valid! Of course you claim to have evidence that you magically can't produce. Of course we just hate your penis. Dude- you are comedy gold.

"Thegoodman" is a stunning example of the Dunning-Kruger effect, isn't he? At basic reasoning, at science, at basic knowledge of human metabolism, at feminism.

I notice he's still not willing to follow through on, well, anything he says. No pictures. No turning off the electricity brought to him by people who violate his principles. No actual sense, just ignorance repeated loudly.

And, as predicted---as I predicted within a very few words after I mentioned them---Mr. "I'm practically a doctor because my wife is one" rejects out-of-hand the recommendation of reading on size-acceptance sites for the very reason I said he would. Despite my saying that Actual Scientific Discussion of Scientific Studies goes on there. He has no idea that the very medium he is touting as a reasonable source is the very reason why he's spouting his ridiculously over-simplified take on obesity. Bro, that information you've been spoon-fed is not accurate.

As a former 27 year old male, who also knows several former 27 year old males, and some current 27ish males, I would like to say the following:

pretty much any 27ish year old male thinks he 'reads a lot about nutrition' and thinks he 'has a good grasp of a healthy diet and lifestyle', even when it is abundantly clear he drinks/smokes/eats/drugs himself into poor health AND has poor sitting posture and lifts with his back not his legs.

Anyone who seriously thinks obesity is as simple as in/out has a problem understanding the science, or they are seriously over-simplifying.

Why are there so many more obese people than there were a generation or two ago? For medical reasons?

"Why are there so many more obese people than there were a generation or two ago? For medical reasons?"

Apparently because those damn feminists took women out of the kitchen: http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/why_dont_women_cook_as_much…

Actually pandagon's section on food issues is an excellent read: http://pandagon.net/index.php/C73/

One thing I have realized through dealing with my own depression through diet, is the deceptiveness of RDAs and other baseline measures for nutrition. When I'm depressed, I will test for normal levels of various vitamin B's, but if I get quite a bit more than "normal," my depression is lessened a good deal. What does the RDA mean to me? Squat. The Feds can recommend whatever random number they want. I'll take what I actually need. And that small example of the difference between population studies and the anecdotal evidence of the individual plays out over and over in nutrition. It doesn't matter what the curve is; it matters where you fall on the curve. Each of us has to find out what we need to be what we define as healthy.

I have never said I was perfect nor do I think I will ever be perfect.

I also never said that health is simply calories in and calories out. Health is complex and there are countless factors involved that are outside of a person's control. However, their weight is not outside of their control. Obese people are more often than not, unhealthy. So many of you continuously take my words as absolutes so you can "hand my ass to me". Clearly there are exceptions to everything. Some fat ass people are healthy as an ox and some fit people are extremely unhealthy. Just because there are exceptions to the fit vs. fat debate doesn't mean we should dodge the bigger issue. Most obese people are at an enormous risk of many health problems.

Here are some of the scientific links that many of you say don't exist.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=childhood-obesity-stil…
http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=overeating-alo…

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/public-health/promo…
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/public-health/promo…

"Obesity kills more Americans every year than AIDS, all cancers, and all accidents combined."

Apparently many of you are more intelligent and have done more medical studies than the American Medical Association since you claim that being obese doesn't make you unhealthy. JAMA also has some good publications on the adverse effects of obesity.

@Big Blue
Stop being pretentious. Just say "different bariatric surgery" options instead of listing all of their medical names to impress people. Also, Jejunoileal Bypass hasn't been done since the 1970's so it is essentially irrelevant. My wife isn't a surgeon (she works in Radiation Oncology) but she doesn't believe that bariatric surgery should be an option for overweight patients. Obesity is an issue with self control and a person's ability to know what to eat and when to stop eating, bariatric surgery doesn't fix either of these problems. It is a temporary fix that will likely result in a loss of weight, but over the long term, many patients regain their weight. Surgery is dangerous the the possibility of infection isn't worth the risk, in my opinion, of lose the weight unnaturally. Many doctors have differing opinions on bariatric surgeries and my wife is on the side that they are not a solution, simply a band-aid.

Pfft, I deal with enough bullshit at work where extremely wrong doctors insist that they are right because they are a *doctor* and I only work there. Did you know that magical doctory goodness means that they cut in lines and think it is justified? Every suboordinate I know has a story about that. I am not down with that unearned authority bullshit being done to me 2nd hand, via the internet. Hell no.

Neither you nor your convenient wife are surgeons, but yet you're absolute authorities on bariatric surgery. LOL of course.

Thanks for the links. You apparently didn't bother to read them before you posted them. They don't quite support the "just exercise and eat less" bullshit you're now pretending you didn't say.

And, you flat out fucking liar, no one said the links didn't exist. *I* said you never provided them. And until today that was true. In fact, at least one person pointed you toward a site that deals with exactly that and is - GASP - an FA site. But, keep playing the poor put upon victim bullshit. It amuses me.

Did you happen to look at the Pandagon links that, you know, actually deal with WHY people are heavier than they were decades ago? Did you happen to visit Shapely Prose for some 101 information? Have you done anything but waste everyone's time bigotry and now transparent backpeddaling?

For the audience:

http://jezebel.com/5356697/fat-vs-fiction

one of the money quotes:

"According to the [second] study, obesity and extreme obesity cause about 112,000 deaths per year, but being overweight was found to prevent about 86,000 deaths annually. Based on those figures, the net U.S. death toll from excess weight is 26,000 per year. By contrast, researchers found that being underweight results in 34,000 deaths per year."

BUT BEING FAT WILL KEEEEEELLLLL YOOUUU!!!11!!1!!

Debunking the absolutely worthless "just diet" horseshit:

http://kateharding.net/2009/02/26/all-diets-work-the-same-poorly/

Healthy at Any Size: http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/mar06/health0306.htm

And those are just from the frigging FAQ, ffs.

Hey Thegoodman: Fuck. Off.

And I tell you what, at 144 and at 262 and at 280, I had never hated my body before that show.

A finalist on Biggest Loser tells everyone what Thegoodman's fat hatred leads to.

@Skeptifem
I am sorry you do not trust doctors. I am not sure why you do not or how you can say their expertise gives them an "unearned authority". A doctor's education is rigorous and thorough and most of them will admit they do not know everything there is to know about the body. What they do know however, is far more than people who are not medical doctors.

@Endor
You seem to be confusing my wife's opinions with "absolute authorities on bariatric surgery". I never said either of us was an authority on anything, someone asked my opinion and I gave it.

I also haven't resorted to any childish name calling like man of you have nor have I said anything negative about any one of you in particular. My gender feminist claims are more apparent with every one of you that calls me names despite me not actually typing anything negative about any of you.

What am I back-peddaling from again? I stand by my original posts on the topic and I am not retracting any of my words. I am also not a victim of anything, nor have I claimed to be. I know what I am getting into when posting on a gender feminist blog and your responses are very interesting to me. I only asked that people stop putting words in my mouth or making outrageous assumptions about me simply because these things have snowballed and completely undermined my posts.

I just read some of the NAAFA website. According to the website, I am definitely discriminatory of obese people (not a few extra pounds). The NAAFA supports the notion that being extremely overweight is not a matter of "poor self-discipline and willpower". I think that it is. There are a million scientific studies that show both sides of this opinion and doctors and scientists that are on opposite sides of the issue.

"Did you happen to look at the Pandagon links that, you know, actually deal with WHY people are heavier than they were decades ago? Did you happen to visit Shapely Prose for some 101 information?"
I did. I don't see how it is relevant. What I am talking about has nothing to do with men or women or feminism.

Because many aspects of a person and their life circumstances (including but not limited to: gender, meatbolism, health, income, education, etc., etc., etc.) intersect to lead to all kinds of outcomes. See here for a graphical illustration.

One thing you could do for starters is to stop using that damn "gender feminism" phrase. It was coined by notorious anti-feminist and MRA Christina Hoff Sommers. She uses the term to suggest that there's a group of crazy women who hate all men and don't want "equality" but actually want men to be oppressed (hence the either/or of gender feminism vs. equality feminism). Rather, from what I have read, most of the feminism on Zuska's blog is simply unapologetic feminism -- that alone is enough to offend many, but really, why should anyone have to sugar-coat the notion that women are not treated as fully human and should be? On the other hand, Hoff Sommers is well known for her belief that actually men are now becoming the oppressed class. Excuse me while I snort in derision. Using her terminology on this blog is an immediate red flag to any of us that you don't actually respect feminism.

You seem to feel that because you are male the women here will disagree with anything you say. However, there are several male posters who frequent Zuska's blog and are treated with the respect their views deserve. You may also have noticed that commenters aren't shy to call out the views of other women when they perceive those views -- or the articulation of those views -- to be offensive, problematic, or ignorant. Part of the reason I frequent this blog is to keep myself aware of where my own privilege interferes with my ability to empathize and respect the experiences of others. You've been repeatedly told that certain statements you've made are offensive because of the unexamined privilege they display. Yet you have categorically refused to examine your privilege or apologize for the hurtful things you've said -- or simply apologize for inadvertently saying something offensive.

You believe that you are the expert on what feminism is -- among so many other areas of "expertise" that it's dizzying to realize just how informed and how much of an authority you clearly believe you are. However, there are people writing here who actually work in the field you are discussing. The least you could do is acknowledge that they may have an understanding that surpasses yours or information to which you are not privy.

And on feminism and what is and is not a feminist issue -- that is not for you to decide. Society's perception of obese women is more negative than society's perception of obese men -- hence the disparity in wage noted above. Partly because of this, obesity IS a feminist issue. It is one more example of a situation in which women -- as an oppressed second class -- are treated even worse than the already poorly treated men who share their situation.

Obese people -- like women, gays and lesbians, PoC, the working class -- are fully human and deserve respect. The tone you use to talk about the obese is not respectful.

The 27-year-old tidbit really does explain a lot. He's that guy at work that runs off at the mouth all the time and fails to realize everyone snickers behind his back because he sounds so utterly stupid.

Just say "different bariatric surgery" options instead of listing all of their medical names to impress people. Also, Jejunoileal Bypass hasn't been done since the 1970's so it is essentially irrelevant.

This is WHY you are a dumbass. This is also why, if your wife actually believes this (I doubt it, but hey, remotely possible), she is a shitty doctor.

Son, I will summarize for the hard-of-thinking and functionally illiterate such as yourself: These various surgeries remove different parts of the gut. Different parts of the gut digest different types of carbon sources. Also, very important, different parts of the gut secrete, and react to, different peptide hormones. Some of these hormones are endogenous (made by your very own body) while others are made by the cooties that live in your guts. Different kindsa cooties live in different parts of your guts, secreting different kindsa hormones all along the way. Not just one or two hormones, but a metric fuckload of different kinds of hormones. By removing just one part of the gut, or just two parts, we found out the hard way that these hormones even exist and their tissue specificity.

"Specificity," that's a big word. It means, proteins in your body that only live in very particular kinds of cells. Maybe wifey can explain it to you. What it means, in a nutshell, is that one little bitty hormonal imbalance, one little genetic mishap, an imbalance in those cooties or maybe a die-off of cooties throws the whole system out of whack. Not majorly out of whack, but enough.

What could cause such imbalances? No one fucking knows, frankly--there are a helluva lot of environmental steroid agonists these days, and some steroid agonists are right in the food supply, that's one. Highly processed food is another, tends to be a lot of "hidden" refined sugars in support of USAian ag subsidies. But with sensitivities such as have been reported in the literature (PubMed, son, PubMed--Scientific American is for the lay-folk) of these receptors and their ligands, just a wee little shift would be sufficient to produce a big effect.

What exactly are you good at, Goodboy? This whole reading and writing thing is apparently a little beyond you.

Great post Comrade Svilova.

While I agree that all humans deserve respect, I don't think obese people should be separated out as if they are a minority or some underprivileged class of society.

Obesity is akin to alcoholism and drug abuse, a person is obese because they show no control or restraint when considering what they consume. I am and have been friends with alcoholics, drug addicts, and obese people. I may love them as friends and family members, but I do not respect their addiction and professionally I would not hire them unless their addiction had been cured. To respect gluttony is to approve of it, and I cannot approve of a person who knowingly harms their own body and shortens their lives against the wishes of their loved ones. Health is certainly complex,as many people have pointed out, and is more difficult to attain for some than it is for others. That doesn't mean they should just assume that if being healthy is difficult, they can throw in the towel. I respect obese people in that they are humans who are suffering from an affliction, but an affliction that is rectifiable if they choose it to be. What I do not respect are addicts who are in denial and attempt to justify their addiction.

I am absolutely not an expert on feminism. The more I read about it the more complex it is. It is similar to Christianity in that there are a million different ideas as to what it is and each person subscribes to some but not all of the ideas behind it.

I agree I am privileged. Which of my privileges am I ignorant of and what have I said that is hurtful and specifically due to my unexamined privilege?

Being not obese is not a privilege just as not being a drug addict is not a privilege.

I am not saying it is anyone's job to educated me, as many of you have told me already. I am saying that I enjoy this blog and I enjoy the information that I get from the various posts. I would like to continue doing so but hopefully with less conflict in the future.

@Big Blue
We are all impressed with your understanding of peptide hormones in the human body. Some people have issues that make them fat. We get it. What exactly does this have to do with anything?

If so many people are fat because of their natural disposition, then why are so many people capable of losing weight when they make the simple decision to just do it?

As a newcomer to this blog (I've read and enjoyed Zuska's posts from time to time but have never commented before this thread), may I just say that with every comment, Goodman proves himself less and less worthy of engagement? Really, all he's doing is recapitulating every "OMG OBESITY EPIDEMIC" ignorant-opinion-masquerading-as-reasoned-argument that can be found in virtually every other corner of the internet. I vote "ignore." At least, that's what I plan to do from now on.

Being not obese is not a privilege just as not being a drug addict is not a privilege.

OK, that's not what "privilege" means as used here. You need to learn some basic terms from sociology before you can enter this discussion fruitfully.

Also, likening feminism to a religion betrays more misunderstanding.

I say this for those who are lurking along at home and may be wondering why thegoodman is being criticized here.

"likening feminism to a religion betrays more misunderstanding"

Feminism is like a religion in that every one of you has a different definition of it and there are certain points of it that are more important to each individual. There are as many denominations of Christianity as there are types of feminism that people subscribe to.

What I am not saying is that feminism is a belief system or some sort of mystical viewpoint, it certainly is not. I see it as a completely justified and validated social movement that has come a long way and still has a long way to go in getting its message out to everyone. The issues are real as are the victims.

@Lu
The obesity epidemic isn't alarmist propaganda, it is very real and as I've said, countless reputable publications support my claims.

I agree I am privileged. Which of my privileges am I ignorant of and what have I said that is hurtful and specifically due to my unexamined privilege?

Allow me to translate for those at home:

I will parrot what I think makes me sound like a good guy because I want to believe people should listen to my pompous maunderings. Ooo! I know! Then I'll pretend to ask a humble-sounding question in the hope it will fool really stupid people into thinking I believe any of this garbage. They'd have to be really thick not to notice that my question has already been answered, but maybe it will distract people into thinking I actually am playing along. I can't read, so clearly no one else can either, right?

"Yet you have categorically refused to examine your privilege or apologize for the hurtful things you've said -- or simply apologize for inadvertently saying something offensive."

So big deal. The same goes for everyone who has harrassed me for defending lower class white people*, and I didn't hear you complain about it, though you did draw the line at describing me as childish.

Not that I care, by hypocrisy stinks!

*Especially those who are from a more privileged class than I am, like Jill Psmith and CPP.

Isabel, FFS, let off the ranting. You have no effing clue what 'class' is. There is such a thing, but I can assure you that it has NOTHING to do with how much money somebody has.

Obesity is akin to alcoholism and drug abuse, a person is obese because they show no control or restraint when considering what they consume...I do not respect their addiction and professionally I would not hire them unless their addiction had been cured. To respect gluttony is to approve of it, and I cannot approve of a person who knowingly harms their own body and shortens their lives against the wishes of their loved ones.

I am grateful to have thegoodd00d more clearly articulate his disgust and prejudice so that all of us can understand how his "thinking" works. Obesity is like alcoholism and drug abuse! Which are totally just moral failings! And a lack of willpower! Which I, thegoodd00d, possess in spades - the morality, and the willpower! My wishes must be obeyed - if you want a job, so you can afford to eat (but not too much)!

Obesity is like alcoholism and drug abuse! Which are totally just moral failings! And a lack of willpower! Which I, thegoodd00d, possess in spades - the morality, and the willpower!

Exactly so.

My hope for people who think like the goodd00d is that they are struck with a chronic disease that necessitates daily medication and causes a reduction in mobility, so they too can cope with the weight-gain side effects of medication and the frustration that comes with reduced mobility, and also that they get to be "fat" and get to experience what they're putting out there for others.

BTW, one MAJOR issue to mention.

Unlike alcoholism and drug addiction, treatment for overweight and obesity is NOT covered by most health insurance. In fact, many health insurance companies are not covering bariatric surgery any more, despite its high success rate not only in treating obesity, but also in treating diabetes, high blood pressure, and other diseases that come with obesity for some people.

But it is much cheaper for insurance companies to send you flyers in the mail telling you to eat veg and exercise, without providing any assistance to doing so.

As Zuska points out, the problem is the black-and-white thinking of anyone who says that to respect equals to approve, and the sense that it even is one's own place to approve or disapprove of other people's situations. Thegoodman is talking morality and worthiness here, not simply talking about whether or not a certain individual will be able to perform a certain job.

Most of the posters here understand that, although they may have a knee-jerk opinion about someone else, it is ultimately not their place to assume that they know that person's situation. Has the obese person you see in passing spent years trying to lose weight without success? Are they on meds that make weight loss extremely difficult? You don't know. I don't know. And to make an assumption that you do know is extremely offensive.

And it is an instance of privilege running rampant. To assume that you know more about another person's situation than they do; to assume that you can judge their moral worth and their personality; and to assume that you know -- not only what they should do -- but what they have done and where and why they have "failed"; and all of these condescending assumptions are only possible if you exercise unearned privilege that tells you that you are better than other people. Hence their situation must be a result of their moral failure.

and the sense that it even is one's own place to approve or disapprove of other people's situations.

Yes. And even more puzzling, thegoodman tells us contemptuously that of course there are cases where obesity is not just a lack of will, yet he remains confident in his "right" to deny employment based on appearance alone. How could he tell the difference between a fat person he deems just lazy and a fat person he grants has an unavoidable medical reason?

And he wasn't just talking about obesity either. Any "health issue" is sufficient to keep a person who wants to work out of the workforce if employers don't feel like making the reasonable accommodations mandated by law.

It's this sort of attitude that keeps the unemployment rate for Americans with disabilities/chronic illnesses so high, in spite of the ADA.

And it's frighteningly clear that people who are not covered under the ADA (folks who are fat but have no illnesses or disabilities; people whose appearance is unacceptable to employers for other reasons that do not constitute a disability) are being shut out of work with no chance of legal recourse.

(Note that I'm not sure that even people with ADA-covered disabilities truly have legal recourse in hiring discrimination, as employers can simply not say why they won't hire PWD.)

Damn. The links i posted never got posted. Poop.

Well, suffice it so say, Kate harding knocks the shit out thecrapboy's bullshit. For the audience: google her and read, if you haven't already.

++

"all of these condescending assumptions are only possible if you exercise unearned privilege that tells you that you are better than other people. Hence their situation must be a result of their moral failure."

Bingo. Which is why his calling himself a feminist is as big a joke as Palin calling herself one.

"129

Isabel, FFS, let off the ranting. You have no effing clue what 'class' is. There is such a thing, but I can assure you that it has NOTHING to do with how much money somebody has.

Posted by: Kea | June 16, 2010 11:05 PM
"
What a moronic, offensive comment. Unfucking believable!

You grew up rich didn't you Kea? I remember you mentioning that. And you have no problem telling a person who grew up relatively poor that they have no idea what class is?

You are bitter that you've fallen from that privileged position I suppose. So therefore socioeconomic differences do not exist. Or don't matter? Since it didn't help you. Riiiiight.

Anyway "class has nothing to do with economics and rich people can be white trash" is on my bingo list. I just heard it over at Ed Brayton's place. They were very insistent over there that 'redneck' 'hick' yokel' 'cracker' and 'trailer park crack whore' (among other offensive pejoratives) were all acceptable terms to use on a liberal progressive blog, and had nothing to do with describing particular groups i.e. white, rural, lower class). They are just useful words when describing a particular person as an idiot and a bigot.

Hahahaha.

Yes there is another definition of 'class' though they are not totally unrelated.

I'll switch to 'caste' if that helps you.

"Kate harding knocks the shit out thecrapboy's bullshit"

Its humorous that you list a blogger as a reputable source. I've just read her FAQ and many of the links there. I simply do not agree with her. Her fine arts degree doesn't make her any more of an expert in health than any one of us, so we are left to our opinions. My opinion is that she is providing information in a very biased manner and runs a very misleading sight.

The fact is that doctors use weight as a fast and easy way to gauge health. Is this always accurate? Absolutely not. Is it accurate most of the time? Yes.

By looking at Kate Harding, I wouldn't consider her fat.

Her fat acceptance blog has gained her notoriety and I am sure she truly believes it, but Deepak Chopra also believes the ridiculousness he spews out on a daily basis. The great thing about the internet is that if you don't like something, you will always find someone somewhere who provides a few links to validate your opinions.

Thegoodman: "The great thing about the internet is that if you don't like something, you will always find someone somewhere who provides a few links to validate your opinions."

HAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!

So true, so true.

"I simply do not agree with her."

Since you clearly haven't grokked what people have been telling you, I'll repeat it again: no one gives a crap what you think. Kate Harding is but ONE such blog. She has done the research and has been active in this area for years. You get your knowledge second hand from someone who doesn't work in the field. Your opinion is completely irrelevant.

And, since you're such a despicable misogynist that you conflated a woman with years of research and study to a woowoo charaltan, I invite you to stuff it.

Harding's premise is Healthy At Any Size. That you're a clueless bigot with a skull thicker than a bank vault is not her problem, nor does it even vaguely refuted her premise.

P.S. No one gives a fuck about your appraisal of her appearance, you privileged sexist douchevat.

Pretty tidy to dismiss someone as "a blogger", as though that diminishes one's credibility. It's not even possible in Harding's case, though, as she is currently writing her third book. Well, one could try, but one would look painfully ignorant.

@SKM
Suzanne Somers has written many books and she still has no clue what she is talking about. Writing books doesn't make you an expert on anything. It just means you can write books that people buy, which is why they get published. If I could convince a publishing company that writing a book about how much fun it is to be a cokehead, they would publish it. Kate Harding has no medical publications on the topic and she is primarily addressing the social issues of fat acceptance. "Healthy at any size" may hold true for a few exceptional people that are healthy and also heavy, but most people who lead a healthy lifestyle will be relatively thin (not magazine skinny, actually healthy looking). My discrediting her as a resource was mostly the response I got from posting a link from USA today (a supposedly less creditable resource than a relatively unknown blogger)

"Since you clearly haven't grokked what people have been telling you, I'll repeat it again: no one gives a crap what you think"
I do grok. I have been asked many questions and I am mostly answering them.

I also find it amusing that you use a word like grok from Stranger in a Strange Land, a book that is often perceived as sexist.

Thegoodman (and this may be a trigger for those with eating disorders):

If you judge people's willpower, moral strength, and health by their outward appearance (as you've said you do), I bet I would pass your test with flying colors. In fact, I think I may have your "willpower" beat!

I'm an anorexic. I starve myself to gain some sense of control. My daily caloric intake is about 1,200-1,500 calories worth of healthy food, and last week I went for three days without consuming anything other than water and unsugared cranberry juice (600 calories/day). My "willpower" and "moral strength" are so strong that I ignored my own body's pleas for survival for -seventy-two hours.- I'm not and have never been a religious person, but it was nearly a religious experience. I felt a sense of my body as a tool, as something divine and pure, although that was probably just the hunger hallucinations talking.

I'm not crazy or "mentally ill." I have medical documentation to that effect. Anyone speaking to me would have no idea that I starve myself; I'm thin, but not bone-thin, and am very articulate. Former employers have had no reason to doubt my credibility or aptitude at my job, as I'm a skilled and adept worker ... right up until I collapse and either have to be hospitalized or am sent home. Even that doesn't impede my work, except for the time I am either unconscious or hospitalized.

Does this mean I am healthy? No. In fact, I bet a lot of people you think are hideously unhealthy are in fact in better condition than I am. My hair is falling out by the handfuls. I have ulcers and digestive and metabolic disturbances, as well as very low blood pressure and hypoglycemia. My hands shake pretty regularly. Other than the pressure from jackasses like you, I'd sometimes rather be fat than have an eating disorder.

Also, before discovering the joys of self starvation, I was an orthorexic (compulsively ate only healthy food, such as fruits -- only one piece at a time -- grains (brown rice and quinoa), vegetables, and legumes I prepared myself using absolutely no sugar, salt, or artificial ingredient of any kind. So it's not that I went from "compulsive overeating" to "eating nothing." No, I went from "eating almost nothing" to "eating nothing."

This is not willpower. This is self-harm borne of living a lifetime in a culture full of people exactly like you, who judge other people on their appearances and always get it completely fucking wrong.

[end trigger.]

What I really want to say to you is, go fuck yourself, and stop calling yourself a feminist too.

Also, for any fence-sitters regarding Isabel:

For all of her talk about class being the one major oppression, etc, she has a remarkably hard time listening to people who have actually been oppressed by class.

I'm a "lifer" -- was born into poverty, have always lived in poverty, will probably die in poverty. It's been creative poverty, as in, I've educated myself pretty well and know how to "dress rich" (you'd be surprised what nice things people throw away or donate to thrift stores -- I have a wardrobe full of silk blouses, tailored vests and jackets, professional-looking trousers and skirts, and sturdy shoes that I've found in the trash or bought for less than $10-$20 per item, and altered at home to fit me) so as to avoid the most egregious class profiling in public, but it's still been poverty.

And yet somehow, according to Isabel, I "still don't get it." My own oppression. My own life experience.
Let me tell you, I do. Being poor sucks, y'all. In the discussion of whether or not you should make your husbands do chores or hire someone else to do them for you both, I'm the woman who gets paid to pick up your dirty socks and clean up your babies' puke while you guys are fighting about it. It blows, because frankly I'm pretty bright (if standardized test scores were available online, I'd prove it to you; I have nothing to hide), but I still have to sit back and watch other people do the things I'd like to do because it's simply not a possibility for me.

Meanwhile, I get raped. Lots of other women do. And then my rapes, like other poorer womens' rapes, get ignored doubly because not only is rape an invisible crime, I/we don't look like "the kind of woman who gets raped." In other words, we are invisible people who are subjected to what is an already invisible crime. And that sucks, in my opinion, even worse than having to clean up baby shit and jockstraps off some rich white woman's floor.

Meanwhile, in discussions of such matters, Isabel does the very thing she accuses other feminists of doing -- engages in class bias. Has said I'm either stupid and crazy because I'm poor, or has accused me of being rich. Clearly I don't know class bias, because I have expressed the fact that, having experienced both biases, I'd almost prefer class bias to gender bias. Thus, I must never have experienced class bias! Because it's obviously much worse, for everyone, and is the one true bias. We feminists are all just Rich.

Right. Point is, she's right -- you should probably all ignore her, and hope she just goes away.

(Thanks for letting me get that off my chest, too. And no, I'm not addressing her directly, because I'm not trying to prove anything to her and I'm not trying to start a comment war. It's just really tiring to see discussions constantly derailed by "thegoodman" and "class is the only oppression!" Can women not talk about anything without having to justify it to someone else? Apparently we can't.)

"class is the only oppression!"

Please show me one, and I will be satisfied with one, example of this.

What is more interesting is that people say this about me.

Nice job calling out the only person consistently defending lower class people around here.

The rest of your post was undecipherable as far as any connection to anything I said.

ps. Why don't you aim your resentment at Kea? She claims that class differences don't even exist - or at any rate they have nothing to do with money! See it's all in your imagination!

Who was the only person to object to that comment?

So...I just want to hug everyone who went out on a limb and shared stuff with the internets that they really, really didn't have to. It sucks to be sick/otherwise atypical, and I'm sorry some of you are sharing and not getting any understanding or sympathy in return, because you sure as hell are not obligated to let us this close. *hugz*

Also, fat-hatred and misogyny can kiss my big brown lady-ass.

I am thoroughly enjoying this game of whack-a-troll. Continue. :)

Hi Samia,

I remember you said you wanted to write more about class. How's that going?

;)

Whack whack!

@Samia, I concur, and thanks. I want to write more about how the perception of chronic illness as a moral issue affects employment, but I'm going to do it elsewhere, where I can delete interruptions by people who just show up to "play devil's advocate" or whatever. The devil has enough advocates, and the rest of us need to talk.

(Zuska, that's not a swipe at your commenting policy, by the way. It's just that there are some things I don't want to write about unless I have my finger on the ban button!)

I want to write more about how the perception of chronic illness as a moral issue affects employment, but I'm going to do it elsewhere, where I can delete interruptions by people who just show up to "play devil's advocate" or whatever. The devil has enough advocates, and the rest of us need to talk.

Pity that Isatroll doesn't follow your very sensible example, SKM.

When Kea said that class has nothing to do with money, I am pretty sure that they mean that a persons relationship with the means of production is much more meaningful as a class determinant than the amount of money that they own. I could be wrong but that is my hunch.

@Joy
You seem disturbed on many levels and your experiential view of the world seems to be your only view. I have read many of your posts and never responded to any of them because they always start and end with "yeah, but look at me!". We are not really talking about individuals here and 1 example of an unhealthy yet thin person isn't even part of the discussion. Of course some terribly unhealthy people look healthy. Never once did I say that appearance is the only gauge of health. What I said is that in an interview, the interviewer can probably use only weight as a gauge of healthy. If the person is missing teeth and the rest of them are brown and rotting out,they are equally unlikely to get a job as a person who weighs 500lbs. The fact is that no one who weighs 500lbs takes care of their bodies just like no person w/o teeth takes care of their body. I hope that you get better.

So, to sum up: the goodman is a liar, a misogynist, a compulsive mansplainer, a long winded babbler on topics he knows nothing about, but who certainly doesn't listen to those stupid chicks who actually WORK IN THIS FIELD and, lastly, is a condescending ass. What a treasure!

My guess is convenience doctor wife works a LOT of long days - far, far, FAR away from home.

your experiential view of the world seems to be your only view

Bingo!!

Oh, wait, I'd already filled that card. But what the hell, I'll start a new one.

@126 We are all impressed with your understanding of peptide hormones

@154 We are not really talking about individuals here

Thegoodman, why do you keep saying "we"? You don't represent a very broad faction of participants in this conversation.

Ha, touché. Good point Yvonne.

I'll try to refrain from using "we" in the future.

@Endor
Which field are you referring to? Which field do you work in that you know far more than I about?

just like no person w/o teeth takes care of their body.

This is an exceptionally bad example, due to the high cost of dental care and the rarity of dental insurance.

It is useful, however, to see the Calvinist thinking on display: "don't hire a person with bad teeth, because it proves they don't care about themselves and thus won't care about the work" leads to people not being able to afford dental care because they cannot secure employment. A vicious cycle.

Economic limitations are not a character flaw.

No, SKM, but not being born an able-bodied, straight, white cisgendered male IS a character flaw. Therefore, all should be judged according to his manly manness's subjective, uninformed, knee-jerk, personally satisfactory opinion. And don't go thinking people who actually work in the field know better than he does. Nosiree!

his main premise seems to be "I got mine, fuck you!". So, he's a libertarian, apparently. ;)

I don't agree with the teeth thing.

For one thing, if you grow up poor or neglected you can put your teeth through some really bad abuse before hitting 18, almost insuring that they will have bad teeth in the future. It doesn't mean they didn't care about their teeth, it means that they didn't have the tools needed to do so.

Also, there are medications that severely discolor teeth and make em look really weird. Bleaching won't fix it. My aunt had to take medicine as a kid that made her teeth look this weird grey color for the rest of her life. I know that isn't like having teeth missing, but people still assume things.

Then there are people who have severe dental problems because they did not receive proper dental care while they were in say, an intensive care unit, or otherwise incapacitated by a life event.

People get shit loads of teeth knocked out in things like traffic accidents. I have seen my fair share of dental horror in the trauma bay, it isn't pretty. Getting hit by a car has nothing to do with how much you care about your body.

etc etc. We don't know where anyone else has been, and assuming just isn't fair. Thegoodman is twenty fucking seven and needs something this simple explained to him. Am I the only one who has made some kind of terrible offensive mistake by assuming something about another person? I bet he has too, but the difference is that I STOPPED doing that sort of thing instead of thinking my behavior is totally acceptable.

"bet he has too, but the difference is that I STOPPED doing that sort of thing instead of thinking my behavior is totally acceptable."

Yes, but you lack his astronomical levels of unexamined privilege. He's got his head so far up his ass he can lick the back of his tonsils. Just more proof he's no feminist.

I am not talking about someone who applies for a job as a gas station attendant. The entire discussion was about professional jobs and professional appearance. Being 500lbs with a bunch of brown/broken/missing teeth is not professional. Weather or not it is fair is irrelevant, it isn't professional.

For the 1 billionth time. Of course there are exceptions to any situation. There are a lot of reasons why people are fat or why people are missing teeth. Most of them are directly related to an unhealthy lifestyle, others are not. Its not an employers job to give an interviewer the benefit of the doubt in every possible situation.

"Economic limitations are not a character flaw."
I agree. However, using your economic limitations as an excuse to not look professional is.

However, using your economic limitations as an excuse to not look professional is.

That makes no sense. If they are unable to pay for dental care, how is it an "excuse"? How are they to pay for the care?

The class-based assumptions associated with "professionals" and "gas station attendants" have likewise shorted out my brain. I think there is nothing else I can say here.

The repetitive use of the word "excuse" is very very revealing. Such a strong flavor ("Calvinist" is very apt) of guilt and sin, both of which are interpreted as being inscribed upon the very body of the individual in question. They are either absent (i.e. someone of "normal" weight with teeth that meet particular standards) or they are inescapable markers of worthlessness. And if the latter, then the possessor of such signs of unfitness will try desperately to explain or excuse them away, not realizing (as TheGoodMan and his ilk are privileged to realize) that it actually takes the hard work of atonement to cleanse oneself of these signifiers of guilt. Hence any request that such "sin" laden people be accepted as-is is the dangerous ground of moral relativism, a request that threatens to destabilize an entire system of signifiers of moral worth through which certain fortunate individuals are elevated to enjoy a privileged status of being demonstrably, visibly, physically AND morally superior to others.

Historiann has had some good posts on the way cleanliness is regarded in our culture -- cleanliness is akin to godliness, etc. etc. Another piece that comes to mind is "Fast Cars, Clean Bodies" by Kristin Ross (http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?tid=5527&ttype=2 for anyone who is interested).

Like SKM, I feel like there's little to be said to address the ideas that our erstwhile NiceGuy(TM) is raising here; I'd rather talk about more interesting questions with people who are actually familiar with Privilege 101. Anyone read Kristin Ross? Any other reading recommendations on how our culture overdetermines clean, thin, white, etc. as physical signs of goodness or worthiness? I'd love to do more reading on this topic.

an entire system of signifiers of moral worth through which certain fortunate individuals are elevated to enjoy a privileged status of being demonstrably, visibly, physically AND morally superior to others.

Comrade Svilova, I am reminded of the movie Rope, where Rupert Cadell is faced with the real-world consequences of his Man-and-Superman bullshitting. Even then, he says something like "you've taken my words and you've twisted them and given them a meaning I never dreamed of!", when in fact David's murder was just a logical consequence of Cadell's worldview.

Thanks for the Kristin Ross tip-off--I haven't yet read her.

Hmm, I have to watch the entire film, thanks for the reminder. (Worst thing about film school is seeing innumerable clips of Great Films and having no time to actually see the films in their entirety.)

It's understandable that a lot of people resist really looking at the implications of their beliefs/positions. In and of itself, a certain position may make sense (some of my father's libertarian positions come to mind here). However, when taken to its logical conclusion, or when its smelly underbelly is revealed, something that seemed innocuous (or at least limited in its horror) turns out to have truly monstrous proportions. That's when the person concerned denies the logical link from their original position to the attendant consequences that position implies.

It's understandable, but it's something I hope I avoid myself. I'd like to think that I own my mistaken positions, admit to them, and rectify the situation. Given that I once was anti-abortion, pro-war, and pro-Bush, I've spent a lot of time recognizing how damaging my own beliefs were and how terrible the implications of my positions could be. (Thankfully I held all those views before I could vote!)

[/anecdata] Thanks again for the film recommendation, and for all your insightful comments here, SKM. I always enjoy seeing you on blogs!

Oh, so now it is professionalism? The idea of a professional appearance is 100% socially constructed- it is a set of appearance based ideals that vary greatly in each society. There is nothing inherently professional about good teeth or a business suit compared to a speedo. Remember powdered fucking wigs?

It is bullshit. It is a ridiculous charade where everyone tries to appear like they have a certain amount of money by buying shit and wearing it. They either can afford it or are expected to pretend, to please people who do have enough money to afford crap like that. None of it has any functionality except to signify the wearer's allegiance to jumping through ridiculous hoops in order to satisfy the arbitrary demands of their superiors. It has absolutely no relationship to how well a person can do their job, unless their job is to be blindly obedient and not question anything in their entire lives.

What a ridiculous thing to value in others, to make into a moral imperative. None of this shit really matters, and the reason it does is because people like thegoodman (who have the right race/sex to make hiring decisions) care. Valuing this means valuing conformity to such an extent that you don't give a shit about the content of people. Gross.

Weather or not it is fair

Why is he blathering about meteorology?

"Oh, so now it is professionalism? "

Well, if he doesn't keep moving the goal posts, how can he keep up his delusions that he's right and we just hate his teeny weeny?

your experiential view of the world seems to be your only view.

Yeah, Joy. Why don't you have everyone else's view of the world in your head? What's wrong with you?

*snort*

"When Kea said that class has nothing to do with money, I am pretty sure that they mean that a persons relationship with the means of production is much more meaningful as a class determinant than the amount of money that they own."

Yeah, SURE she did. uh huh. You just know this don'tcha. And sure that makes total sense, especially in 2010! btw, Nails, you've continues to evade the question of your own background.

"Am I the only one who has made some kind of terrible offensive mistake by assuming something about another person? I bet he has too, but the difference is that I STOPPED doing that sort of thing instead of thinking my behavior is totally acceptable. "

No you never do anything like that! Hahaha. you are so perfect, and at 23 yet!!!!

Nails, your problem is you never know when to just shut your freakin' piehole.

your problem is you never know when to just shut your freakin' piehole

...

Nah.

*tootles off to scrub toilet*

I don't owe you personal details about me. The few you have you try to hurt me with. I have done nothing to you except for disagree with you online. In this case I gave a guess as to what Kea meant, and admitted that I could be wrong. I am not sure how you could interpret this to mean that I am asserting that I know everything, when I explicitly said I did not. The second portion you quoted was me talking about how I make mistakes and try to better myself, at which point you accused me of saying I was perfect, despite the implication of screwing up being present in the quoted text. You are completely ignoring the parts of my words that disagree with the extreme judgment you have made of my character. You are saying you know what I think about myself when I have not told you so. Do you think that you are being realistic about any of this?

You need help. This isn't said to hurt or dismiss or judge you as a person, it is said out of the concern I feel for every person I encounter. You think that I deserve for you to try and hurt my feelings, and that you should know personal information about me when it isn't your business at all. I am asserting my right to healthy boundaries with a stranger on the internet, not avoiding some all important issue (my personal background). You think I should talk about what you have decided I should, and so should everyone else. This is extremely distorted thinking that does not reflect reality or lead to any real communication or understanding. It is a painful and dysfunctional way to think that will only make you more miserable as time goes on if you refuse to see the problem with your thoughts and behavior. You aren't upsetting me by following me around and doing this, I just feel sad that you experience the world this way. You are just making yourself more agitated by continuing your obsessive behavior. If you can't stop this behavior because it is ineffective can you at least do it for your own sake? You deserve to live a life that is satisfying, and I cannot imagine how that could be possible when you are so demanding of others and then feel like cruelty is a justified response to the lack of obedience. You must experience a lot of anger and frustration to behave in such a way. It cannot be pleasant and there really is a better way to live and communicate with other people. Give it a shot.

"The few you have you try to hurt me with"

How have I tried to hurt you????????? That's rich.

Have I tried to get you kicked off any blogs for example? Have I judged you, and announced to others that you are a racist? or a child abuser, or some other hated thing? Have a I tried to slander you, and then not admitted when I was wrong?

What gives you the idea that you can do this and not suffer any consequences?

"it is said out of the concern I feel for every person I encounter."

Hahahahahahaha. You are SO concerned about me! It is better for me that you investigate me using google and report your findings to the "progressive" community. This is a totally sane thing to do. *I* need help. Sure, Nails, sure.

"You think that I deserve for you to try and hurt my feelings"

Why would I try to hurt your feelings? When did this become about your feelings? I don't give a flying fuck about your feelings after the dishonest, cowardly actions you have taken. Sounds like the guilt talking.

"I am asserting my right to healthy boundaries with a stranger on the internet, not avoiding some all important issue (my personal background)"

I see. Our socioeconomic backgrounds are important issues (? interesting admission there) that we should *keep secret*. Keeping them secret is respecting our backgrounds.

It's okay. I think I can guess the answer.

So, in a racism discussion it is okay to keep one's race secret, even if you are calling people out etc. In attempting to take control of a sexism discussion, no need to reveal that one is male. It has no relevancy at all. It's all about healthy boundaries!

If someone calls me out as a "racist" for pointing out the existence of a group that suffered 400 years of oppression and whose very existence is being ignored in a thread because they are "white" (i.e. "Canadians are always welcomed into the US because they are white") and other class-related comments I have made, it is pushing boundaries for me to want to know the socioeconomic class of my accuser. Why is that? Why is it a secret? This is exactly what Jim Goad says - class is America's dirty little secret.

"or lead to any real communication or understanding"

Yes, spying and banning is what leads to healthy, productive communication. Of course!

"I just feel sad..."

Waaaaaaa. Spare me your pity.

"You deserve to live a life that is satisfying"

LOL. Thanks, dearie, I do. And I have one. And it is obvious you spend about 1000x more time than me on here arguing fruitlessly with people. YOU deserve a better life. I feel so sad for you.

"here really is a better way to live and communicate with other people. Give it a shot. "

Yes, it's called respecting your elders (i.e. more experienced) for starters. Live and let live is another good one. MYOB. Ya know?

You owe me an apology Nails. You were wrong. YOU made an enemy of me. I paid zero attention to you until then, as far as I know. Your ignorant actions had real life consequences.

Maybe it's all for the good in the end, I don't really miss the weird Orwellian, anti-sex atmosphere over at Jill's.

I am not tortured; I see that everyone who doesn't spew the approved bullshit is treated the same bizarre way around here anyway.

Why don't you skedaddle back to Jill's place? I think she just baked a new batch of cookies.

Isabel, you have a problem. FYI, I have been through the rich-poor cycle more times than I can count. I have been both filthy rich and genuinely homeless. To go from being homeless to succeeding, all you need is some nice clothes from the thrift store, a good sense for where the free showers and free food is, and a LOT of will power. I have cleaned large houses and small hovels. I have both served, year after year with no hope of escape, and I have been waited upon. I have lived in antipodean classless societies, and in the centre of European snobbery.

But even after telling you this, you know almost nothing about me. In getting irritated with me, you are jumping to conclusions about my (rather remarkable) life experiences and my character. I consider that my biggest advantage in life was being born in an affluent, English speaking country. But this is an advantage that many share with me.

Weather or not it is fair

Why is he blathering about meteorology?

Helen, the poor oppressed dear can't spell. Wimmenz, ya know. We took the werd skilz out of his brane.

"Isabel, you have a problem."

Fuck you. You know nothing about me either. Who are you to judge? But you SAID class has nothing to do with how much money someone has.

That is all I was responding to.

I know all about succeeding from a point of poverty.I am not whining (I've been lucky).

Remember, there are plenty of women and PoC that are successful exceptions. And you STARTED OUT with all the advantages. Who are you to judge me anyway? Who cares how filthy rich you were?

You sound like you have a lot of issues. Good luck with them, I feel sorry for you, just like I feel sad for all the people I encounter here.
;)

Skeptifem, Kea - seriously now, what is the point in continually trying to reason with this person? She's not interested in anything but what's she's been doing, not reasoned debate. Save yourselves the headache and killfile.

I consider that my biggest advantage in life was being born in an affluent, English speaking country

I agree with your comment, but add this: are you also able-bodied and more or less healthy enough to borrow against future energy stores so you can push through tough physical times? Because when you write,

all you need is some nice clothes from the thrift store, a good sense for where the free showers and free food is, and a LOT of will power.

I think you are forgetting that disabilities are not a matter of will. Or rather, you are not thinking about the intersection of disability and poverty at all, perhaps. But how is one to "clean hovels" if one has, for example, multiple sclerosis and no medical insurance for care?

I bring it up because one of the themes in this thread has been that health is a matter of will, and that is not so. Your will can help you manage chronic illness or disability, but you can't prevent disability or banish your limitations through strength of character.

SKM, thanks for bringing that up; I'd been concerned about that aspect of Kea's point as well.

In general, while individuals will succeed despite the odds, that doesn't change the systematic conditions that prohibit most people in a marginalized or under-privileged group from succeeding. Bill Gates didn't finish college, but that hasn't made it easier for my brilliant high-school-diploma-only DH to get the kinds of jobs he deserves. These token success stories can be a way to further marginalize people who are already underprivileged; X managed to "pull hirself up by the bootstraps" why can't you? Etc.

(My second paragraph wasn't addressed to Kea specifically; it's a general comment because, as SKM says, individual stories of will power and success can be held up as evidence that everyone could be healthy, wealthy and wise if they just tried hard enough.)

Speaking of bill gates- he is the first person to admit that he was extremely lucky. He got access to a computer when he was 13 or 14... almost no other kids could say that at the time.

I don't really give a shit about soaring to the top of a class structure, I don't want to live like that. I just want the bottom to not be so shitty- people who work hard should be able to afford decent living and have some sort of control over the economic decisions that affect their communities. Wages have stagnated for what, 50 years now? Workers have no control over their employment, we are all at the mercy of huge tyrannical corporations. There isn't even a labor party here. I think something like 9% of workers here are unionized- it is a really crappy situation.

SKM, of course you are right that health is a necessary condition. I simply neglected to mention it.

I agree with skeptifem. The main reason I spend so much time living in poverty is because I CHOOSE it. I could have stayed with a rich boyfriend, or been more obedient to my dumb ass supervisors. I chose not to.

And by the way, Isabel, I did NOT say that I was born 'rich', as you put it. You need to work on your reading comprehension.

I don't really give a shit about soaring to the top of a class structure, I don't want to live like that. I just want the bottom to not be so shitty

Hear, hear.

A third hear hear! You put it so well, Skeptifem.

(And actually, my DH was using computers in 1980 at age 9 -- he had early access to computers, learned tons about them, and is truly brilliant. He still didn't manage to be a Bill Gates. The only reason I bring this up is that I think sometimes it's impossible to say why, exactly, someone succeeds and someone else doesn't. There are so many factors that it is impossible to pinpoint why one person's life is different from someone else's. And that's why it's important to not judge others or assume that a person's position in life is their fault or responsibility. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Sometimes it's chance or something specific, sometime it's impossible to tell. We just can never be certain about someone else's position. Heck, can we even be certain we understand ourselves and our own lives? :-) )

SKM, of course you are right that health is a necessary condition. I simply neglected to mention it