Should a campaign be organized against "Norbit" for its bashing of overweight women?

[JackRiddler]

This is not flame-bait. Yes, I criticized the campaign against the Snickers ad, or rather, the arguments advanced for it. But if you believe in it and you fought the six-hour battle to have Mars pull the campaign, good for you.

It finally made me think of this:

1) The "Norbit" movie by Eddie Murphy is getting the usual blockbuster promotion, ads all the time, billboards on the subway, etc.

2) These commercials are clearly aimed at the impressionable 10-15 age group.

3) The movie is apparently about how some schlub named Norbit (Murphy) married a very fat woman (Murphy in a fat suit and drag, doing the neo-Al Jolson) and is now stuck with her. She is by definition physically repulsive, and an acceptable target for universal mockery. This mockery is celebrated as natural and good; no irony or nuance is pretended. It's fine, because the commercials imply that she's too overbearing and stupid to even understand that everyone is disgusted by her. (The reactions exceed what the NFL players showed while viewing the Snickers ad.)

4) The funniest idea is apparently the notion that poor Norbit actually has to have sex with this woman. The billboard on the subway shows her in lingerie, crushing him beneath her on the bed, with him giving a wacky "uh oh" face to the viewer.

I'm not even going to ask how 100 showings of these commercials are not 100 times more offensive and damaging to a group that is subjected to discrimination and yes, violence, than the single showing of the Snickers ad. This is self-evident.

I do wonder why it doesn't inspire any public expressions of outrage.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. Join me to your list.

I think this like the 1,000th Eddie Murphy movie where he uses a fat suit. I don't understand why it's acceptable.

[HughBeaumont]

11. And GIANT red-block letters.

[Warpy]

2. Didn't you get the memo? Overweight women are perfectly OK

to hate. It's the last acceptable bigotry and they're a fair target. They made themselves that repulsive, right? Even if it's drugs, metabolic, hormonal, genetic, or viral, THEY DESERVE IT. Right?

They even hate themselves.

[emulatorloo]

30. Not just women, all overweight people EOM

[mentalsolstice]

52. Uh, here in the south

Overweight, educated, white men are good ol' boys, and most actually do well for themselves...but you can betcha that the wife is trim with a lot of hair and jewelry. Overweight women, need not apply!

But yes, in other areas all overweight people are discriminated against, and it's very hurtful!

[emulatorloo]

54. maybe so, but national media it is either buff or scrawny

Either John Cena or Eminem, take your choice. And speaking of "lots of hair" either buff or scrawny you gotta be hairless.

The fat guy, the fat woman, they are most always the brunt of jokes.

[Neshanic]

266. I'm sorry, I missed the memo. Can overweight people not marry now, are they beaten up?

and hung on a fence to die like a scarecrow?

[grace0418]

56. Don't forget that all overweight women are clueless, desperate and man-hungry

and couldn't possibly ever attract a mate so they have to terrorize and force someone to be with them.

[rzr77]

66. fat, short, bald, thin men are all ok to humiliate

as unmasculine .. eg., as sexually deviant, stalker, can't get a woman, little dicked perverts, pedophile, homosexual (nothing wrong with being gay, but its wrong to attempt to bully/emasculate a straight man by calling him gay).

there is far more discrimination against men based on physical traits than most will ever admit.

[Katherine Brengle]

168. Sure, but there is more against women.

[rzr77]

258. That's your opinion - I disagree. nt

[Djinn]

291. so do I

Women can refuse to accept that men face this sort of stuff (and always have) if they want to act like lone victims or they can accept allies and fight against ALL discrimination based on appearance.

[UndertheOcean]

3. because its funny ....

and because making fun of the quirky aspects of people , is the sort of low brow comedy that will never go away.

Borat comes to mind.

Now making fun of starving african children , now thats really despicable , yet that doesn't stop South Park from doing so.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

42. Borat had very few of those elements to it.

Borat was much more about exposing people's hidden prejudices. It was far from being low brow.

[UndertheOcean]

98. Come On! the fat costar masturbating to a pic of pamela anderson...

Eating up a whole bear , whose head he keeps in the fridge , if that is not low brow , what is ?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

102. You're talking about an aggregate of 10 minutes in a 90 min. film.

Please, give me a break.

[UndertheOcean]

105. What about the obese hooker ?, the pooping joke ...

all the eat my ch%^&m remarks...

The naked son ...

breast milk cheese ...


Damn funny , but stupid and insensitive...and still funny.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

107. You clearly did not understand the point.

The point of the entire movie is to point out Americans' ignorance and prejudices. The naked son, for example... there is no culture in which such a thing would be acceptable. But the ignorant Americans let the whole thing slide because they don't know whether or not they'd offend Borat by saying anything about it. The only people in the entire movie that escaped it were the group of feminists who properly ended the discussion as soon as they saw where it was heading.

These examples you provide are most assuredly not just low brow humor at all. It would be, perhaps, if the film was Jackass, but it is clearly much more sophisticated than you're giving it credit for.

[Runcible Spoon]

253. I thought the obese hooker was actually portrayed sympathetically...

maybe that's just me :shrug:

[Djinn]

295. You think?

You don't have a problem with Borat stereotyping an Islamic nation as being virulently anti-semitic? You don't think Muslims face more discrimination right now than obese people? No-one was ever added to a no flight list (though they may have been forced to buy extra seats) sent to Egypt for torture or locked in Gitmo for 5 years without charge for being fat have they.

Why do you think laughing at fat people is bad but laughing at Kazakh peasants is fine.

The line about Borat being about making fun of ignorant Americans is the one pushed by the producers and Baron-Cohen and I imagine that this shitty movie's producers will claim that they're really poking fun at people's prejudices about fat people and not actually AT fat people. Do you think that some Kazakh people might disagree with you as to whether Borat was offensive?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

352. Again, you missed the point completely.

No one, I repeat, NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON, should reasonably believe ANYTHING about Borat. Not a single goddamn thing. And it reflects personal prejudices or ignorance about anyone who does.

And no, you cannot legitimately say the same about Norbit. Not even close. The entire Norbit movie is fiction. Borat films real events (for the most part).

[Zookeeper]

408. "Borat films real events"

After arranging them and editing the results.

[Zookeeper]

334. Borat ridiculed groups that are considered...

fair game. When he approached a group of young African-America men at night, he didn't hand them a bag of his feces to see their reaction. He didn't make nasty comments about Jews to see if they'd tolerate anti-semitism. He didn't insult their wives. Instead, he told them how cool they were. Wow, that was really brave. :sarcasm:

I love outrageous humor, but I thought Borat was cowardly, with one main exception: Borat wrestling naked with his manager. It was a long scene and it seriously pushed the limits of comfort for most people.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

354. You've got to be kidding me.

You're calling him a coward for going into a very dangerous neighborhood and STILL fucking with people's heads? What would it take for you to call him brave? You're insane.

[Zookeeper]

406. He went into the neighborhood with a film crew....

He told them they were really cool and he wanted to be like them. So, you think that because they were black men they were just automatically going to attack him? Honey, that movie was made for you and other people that can't look beyond their assumptions and sterotypes.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

413. Uhm, sorry, but if he did what YOU were talking about

the probability was high. Considering, of course, the fact that he got attacked recently in New York City for the same thing, I don't think I'm talking out of my ass on this one.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=416121&in_page_id=1773

[Zookeeper]

419. Right, but he was safe in acting outrageously...

with a group of "genteel" white people who were trying to graciously entertain him. It was a pretty good bet that they weren't going to punch him out. That's my point.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

426. Perhaps for this movie that's what he did.

But if you followed the link, you'll see that's not always true. Further, you don't know what got left on the editing room floor. Perhaps he did act outrageously and it just wasn't funny enough for the movie.

[KansDem]

4. Here's a bit more info...

Norbit

[Pacifist Patriot]

5. Good question. I find the premise in poor taste.

To say the least. It is not something I would watch, but you're right. It wouldn't inspire me to active protest driven by outrage. I have some self-examining to do.

[meegbear]

6. Hmmmm ...

Because they aren't threatened or assaulted for who they are?

Because they don't have political and religious leaders trying to pass or enforce laws against them?

Because they can't be denied basic rights based on that attribute?

Because family and friends won't disown you or no longer associate with you because of that attribute?

Because it's promoted as a comedy and not a documentary on a person "living a deviant lifestyle"?

[JackRiddler]

22. Answers

First off: definitely not equating the openly political and legal discrimination faced by gays with the cultural inhumanity shown to fat people, especially fat women. Two different phenomena, to be sure, and both very complex.

Now your questions:

Because they aren't threatened or assaulted for who they are?

You're kidding, right? Only a thin person, especially someone who was thin throughout their school years, could ever think this.

Because they don't have political and religious leaders trying to pass or enforce laws against them?

True. They only have an entire culture and a ka-zillion dollar industry devoted to constantly telling them they are worthless, spineless, ugly pieces of shit.*

Because they can't be denied basic rights based on that attribute?

Now who's being naive?

Because family and friends won't disown you or no longer associate with you because of that attribute?

As with any other attibute considered deviant, including being gay, this very much depends on the family and friends. They won't do it publicly in the style of fundamentalists announcing that they have disowned their children for being gay, no. But the fat person may have never been befriended in the first place, because they were fat.

(I'm not imagining a world where everyone has to have a fat friend. Just one in which it's not culturally acceptable to target them for constant ridicule and opprobium, and to share this ridicule as an entertainment for young people.)

Because it's promoted as a comedy and not a documentary on a person "living a deviant lifestyle"?

Which makes what difference exactly? (The documentary version exists in this case too, in the form of all the diet and pills propaganda.)

* As for laws - who is to say what the Surgeon General of a future reflecting certain already extant tendencies in the totalitarianism of health will not recommend?

[meegbear]

25. Answers ...

You're kidding, right? Only a thin person, especially someone who was thin throughout their school years, could ever think this.
Ummm, no. Maybe you think gay bashing just "one person socking a fag in the face", but in most cases, it's a group of people who are attacking a person. A friend of mine had his face smashed in with a baseball bat several times after being jumped by 5 guys for being gay, thank you.

True. They only have an entire culture and a ka-zillion dollar industry devoted to constantly telling them they are worthless, spineless, ugly pieces of shit.*
Agreed. * Until the Surgeon General does so, it's moot.

Now who's being naive?
Those laws banning gay marriage are what? Groups working to have sexual orientation from anti-discrimination laws are what? Naive my ass!

As with any other attibute considered deviant, including being gay, this very much depends on the family and friends. They won't do it publicly in the style of fundamentalists announcing that they have disowned their children for being gay, no. But the fat person may have never been befriended in the first place, because they were fat.
If you can give me an example of a person being disowned because of obesity, I'll concede.

Which makes what difference exactly?
Because there are several comedies out there about being gay, just like being obese. In the end, everyone's happy (usually). This is marketed as a comedy about someone who's fat, so one expects fat jokes, like a comedy about someone who's gay will have gay jokes.

[Marnieworld]

Your excellent points fall on deaf ears

It is going to take people with courage like you to stand up and say enough! in order to change people's consciousness.

Just as some diminish the struggle for gay civil rights by comparing it with the history of racial civil rights, now some diminish the experience of the obese as insignificant in comparison with their struggle.

Fat kids get assaulted. Fat girls can be physically assaulted at any moment. I am an overweight woman and I am constantly on guard for verbal assault wherever I go, walking the dogs etc. It's a part of life to face this hatred and facing this hatred everywhere has always been a part of me. Overweight children and teenagers are at as high a risk of suicide as gays. Just as some debate the "choice" of homosexuality, it can be debated exactly how someone becomes overweight and stays that way. Even with personally culpability, assuming 100% no one deserves the hatred direct and indirect like Norbit directed towards them like fat people.

Fat people are often refused jobs because of predjudice, that counts as a "basic right" wouldn't you think? And I personally feel that I was dropped as a friend because I gained a lot of weight during the relationship. It happens.

I don't think that anyone can be "too PC". We should all support people being treated with dignity and respect. One hatred should not be more acceptable than others.

Amos and Andy and Minstrel shows were also considered comedy at one point. Now we realize that human beings with all of their complexities and dignities were being treated as cartoon characters. Really, what's the difference now?

[hfojvt]

104. some of that is universal

anyone by themself can be verbally assaulted, or physically assaulted. As a skinny guy, I am an obvious target because they figure me to be a push-over. And there are lots of people who think I am skinny because I do not lift weights. Employers will discriminate too, because they want a burly guy who they figure can tote some bales or whatever. I spent six or seven years trying to gain weight and bulk up, with no success, but I did get stronger.
There is, however, so much hatred in this world, that everybody gets a share.

[Djinn]

309. As a smoker

I face legal discrimination. However it is not in anyway comparable with civil rights or gay rights.

According to all obesity/endocrinology/nutrition/metabolic chemistry experts the percentage of obese people who are that way because of factors outwith their control is so small as to be statistically irrelevant. that's why you rarely find obesity in areas of famine.

Being gay or black is not the same as being overweight (or a smoker) it's not about "downplaying" anything it's about recognising that people will judge you for your behaviour and opposed to judging someone on their sexuality or ethnicity it is perfectly acceptable to do that.

Nicotine (unlike food) is physically addictive and it's incredibly hard to beat but I don't expect sympathy from non smokers because smoking (just like what you eat and how much one exercises) is a BEHAVIOUR I can change.

[Marnieworld]

357. Yes but

Just because someone has a negative behavior doesn't justify the hatred and ridicule directed towards them. It's hate regardless of why someone hates and it's still wrong and cruel. People can judge privately but when they actively direct that judgement towards someone they are still wrong. What you wrote doesn't excuse any of it and is so often used as justification. I don't see why someone is fat has anything to do with how they are treated. They are still people who deserve dignity and to walk through life without experiencing cruelty about it regardless. I just will never understand why.

[Djinn]

302. you seem to contradict yourself

First you say:

"definitely not equating the openly political and legal discrimination faced by gays with the cultural inhumanity shown to fat people, especially fat women"

but then you go on to list how they are equitable??

who is to say what the Surgeon General of a future reflecting certain already extant tendencies in the totalitarianism of health will not recommend?

Huh? the totalitarianism of health?? WTF, obviously it's different in the US but as a taxpayer I'm very happy that our health system sometimes discriminates against obese people. Just as I'm happy that they also discriminate against smokers. I don't excpect taxpayers to subsidise my poor health as a result of my smoking and I don't expect to have to subsidise someone elses because of their lack of willpower.

Please note that I readilly admit I have just as little will power as the majority of overweight people, it's just that for me ciggies are more attractive than cakes. Both are irresponsible personal choices and shouldn't be paid for by everyone else.

[Beelzebud]

7. Political Correctness run amok.

WTF is going on here at DU lately.

So is all comedy just a no-no now?

Should we stop making fun of Bush? After all. He's a person too!!!!!

[Stuckinthebush]

13. I don't think so, Beezlebud

Honestly, I had not thought of this type of analysis and I have seen the trailers for the movie for some time now.

PC run amok is an interesting statement, and I'm not going to say it is wrong, but I do think that PC is not a bad thing.

I think the OP is saying, "Is it ok to laugh at the expense of obese people?" You may say it is ok, and that this movie is not making fun of fat people, but is making fun of a fictional character who is clearly not lovable. I'd say that the OP does have a point, and it is something for us to discuss.

[Beelzebud]

15. Discuss away. Count me out. Comedy is still allowed in America for the time being.

Maybe someday when the 1st amendment is overturned, we won't have to put up with things that offend us.

[Stuckinthebush]

19. No, no

I don't think that comedy is the issue here, it is the object of the comedy.

When does comedy cross the line? Some might say that everything is up for ridicule. It is one thing to rag on the powerful, but is comedy aimed at the powerless and marginalized really funny? Sure, at a base level it is and I have giggled at the commercials myself. Should we dig deeper though, and try to understand why it is funny to us? Why we feel it is not objectionable to laugh?

On the other hand, there is that comedian who is very much overweight and jokes about his own weight(has a high voice and says "nay nay" - can't think of his name). He makes me cry he is so funny. This begs the question, "Is it ok to laugh at someone making jokes about himself?"

[Beelzebud]

20. Comedy only crosses the line for people that let it.

(I'm overweight)

[Stuckinthebush]

23. Point well taken

Is there a universal line however? Holocaust victims for instance?

[frankenforpres]

250. well, curb your enthusiasm

where a holocaust survivor and a competitor from the show Survivor gat in an argument over who should really be called a survivor

[JackRiddler]

265. no there is no line

But thinking makes it so. (And I do believe that: Thinking makes meaning.)

[eridani]

123. What did Molly Ivins just say about humor directed toward despised people?

Look it up.

[Morgana LaFey]

272. Here's what she said, and it's definitely worth saving

There are two kinds of humor. One kind that makes us chuckle about our foibles and our shared humanity -- like what Garrison Keillor does.
The other kind holds people up to public contempt and ridicule -- that's what I do. Satire is traditionally the weapon of the powerless against the powerful. I only aim at the powerful. When satire is aimed at the powerless, it is not only cruel -- it's vulgar. -- Molly Ivins
many more of her quotes here: http://womenshistory.about.com/od/quotes/a/molly_ivins.htm


I'm interested in what it says about some DUers that they are willing to target both women and fat people as worthy subjects to poke fun and cruelly laugh at.

[annabanana]

136. Comedy as power...

I am never comfortable with comedy when it is used as a "dogpile" on someone who is not in a position to fight back. There is such a thing as "oppressor comedy", and this is one example. Making fun of the powerful is a defense mechanism, and a very effective one (witness the Daily Show & Colbert Report). No one can argue that the Administration is without recourse, which also makes comedy a dangerous profession for those tweaking the beast.

People who are already marginalized by society, and not treated with dignity in the public sphere are here subjected to further humiliation.

I don't think it's particularly funny, myself. (My sympathies are with the Geico Caveman)

[rebel with a cause]

149. I love the caveman.

If I was young and healthy, I would be stalking me a caveman right now. B-)

[Morgana LaFey]

273. Very well said,

thanks.

[Djinn]

312. never

it's free speech. There is absolutely NOTHING that someone can say that can cause you harm, unless YOU let it.

if someone wants to make a "comedy" making fun of non whites, poor people and women, clearly I wont be going to see it, if the majority of people think in a similar fashion the movie will tank and producers will steer clear of making a "haha look at the poor black chick" movie after that.

but is comedy aimed at the powerless and marginalized really funny

Certainly not to me and probably not to most people but that doesn't make it not funny fullstop. It's not up to me to decide what other people should find funny.

Personally I've always found Borat to be highly offensive (wasn't big on Ali G either for similar reasons)and Baron Cohen's apparent view that while HIS closely held beliefs are not for ridicule everyone elses are, but would I waste my time picketing/protesting/boycotting or even spending ten seconds thinking about it? No not at all, there are far more pressing issues that I don't have to time to devote to, if I don't like a movie I just wont watch it.

The options available to all the Christian Taliban who do not wish to see sex on TV are also available to people who don't like fat jokes in movies. Turn it off, don't buy a ticket. Simple.

[JackRiddler]

27. Let's get a couple of things straight...

Is Norbit comedy? No self-respecting comedian would consider it anything other than failed comedy.

No one is discussing bans on anything. Public approbation and boycotts are legal and acceptable means of counteracting propaganda one doesn't agree with. Norbit is a publicity campaign, one is free to respond to it in the same way.

And yeah, this thread is a reaction to the Snickers controversy, but not meant only to be smarmy. For me the thought exercise is serious: Why is an ambiguous treatment of homophobia so bad, whereas a large-scale propaganda campaign unambiguously telling children that fat people are gross is ignored? What defines these relative values in our culture?

[ronnykmarshall]

414. Thank god Blazing Saddles wasn't made today

Heads would explode!

[Stuckinthebush]

8. Hmmmmm

Good critical analysis of this movie. I will be honest and say that I had not engaged in the same analysis.

Your points are well taken and beg us to examine the following:

1.) Does society accept the mockery of and bias against overweight people?
2.) Are overweight people seen as crude and stupid?
3.) Do we assume that any man of average build who marries an overweight woman must have some psychological or emotional imbalance?
4.) Is it acceptable to laugh at fat people, and if so, why?

I am sure there are some who will say that such analysis goes too far and we just should not over analyze this movie. They may have a point, but isn't it our duty as critically aware liberals to examine our behaviors very closely?

Thanks for the post!

[Morgana LaFey]

117. WAIT a minute. It's not just Fat People being ridiculed here

The one clip I saw on Oprah yesterday, I think it was, was RANK MISOGYNY. So there are two issues, and I am really depressed that the fat people discrimination is being highlighted to the exclusion of the misogyny.

And I'm extremely upset with Eddie Murphy for sinking this low. He doesn't -- or didn't used to (I don't think) -- need to. And I'm not too happy with Oprah not seeing it either, and promoting the movie.

Dear God, there's enough hate in the world already. We don't need to give juvenile men of all ages MORE reason and permission to despise and ridicule and dump on women, and esp. fat women. This brings that kind of dual discrimination and oppression to the level of group sport for men who need someone to feel superior to (via mocking and ridicule).

VERY disgusting.

[LWolf]

342. What if it WERE "just fat people?"

Does that mean it is ok to ridicule fat people?

Is it that ridiculing/bullying others is so much an ingrained part of our culture that we have to leave some "accepted" targets?

[hughee99]

9. Perhaps after seeing

Eddie's version of the Nutty Professor, Nutty Professor II: the Klumps, Big Momma's house, Big Momma's house 2, Media's Family Reunion, Diary of a Mad Black Woman and Shallow Hal, people have just become desensitized to the whole thing.

[JacksonWest]

71. Shallow Hal is a different movie then the above. It's message is exceptance of large people

and people that are "unattractive".

Just saying.

[hughee99]

92. Though it does have a similar seen which makes comedy

out of having sex with larger women. That's what made me think of it.

[JacksonWest]

101. Fair enough. A cheap laugh in a movie that has a different message...

Touche. It's advertising and certain scenes did have a mocking tone.

[Djinn]

315. how did you get that message

from Shallow Hal? the fat chick was only attractive because he'd been hypnotised, the WHOLE point of that movie was that he'd HAVE to be hypnotised because the woman was so gross - that's where the "comedy" came from.

[ShortnFiery]

10. Because the diet commercials continue to tell us that if we are

not wearing a size 4, we are fat. Therefore, it relieves stress (in a cruel way) to make fun of people who are larger than us. I guess, as long as we fit into one airline seat, it's OK to feel superior.

Not so much divorced from "the intensity" are reformed smokers, who become "self-righteous" when they pass by a smoker. That is, "I don't have that vice any longer, so you're trash and I can make fun and lecture you inferior beings."

Unfortunately, smokers and drinkers can often hide their *hideous* vices, but those with obesity can not. They are IDEAL targets for ridicule.

It's worse in our USA Obsessive-Compulsive drive to be two ounces shy of "a skeleton" - most especially for teenage girls and women. Therefore, the taunts and ridicule are more cutting ... perhaps projection because many anorexics feel as obese as Eddie Murphy in the fat suit. :shrug:

America is a sick culture with regard to weight issues, i.e., we obsess. :(

[diamidue]

60. In your reply,

you managed to insult thin women. You complain about others being self-righteous and judgemental and then you turn around and do the same thing. Only 0.6 percent of American women are anorexic. 69.8 are overweight and 37.8 of those are obese. Your wanting to shift all of this country's weight problems on a few skinny women - who are also currently being ridiculed in the press - is telling.

[ShortnFiery]

261. anorexia is a mental illness - sorry but mostly a western phenomenon.

Only one in ten anorexics are male. It can only lead me to believe that far too many parents are letting their teenage girls buy into unattainable stereotypes. Anorexia and bulimia are becoming significant health concerns for teen girls. Time to kick the fashion industry in their bony a**es because unless you're 5'10" or taller you can not appear bone thin and still be somewhat healthy. :shrug:

More than ever, it's time for parents and friends of girls "on the edge" to encourage them to lead a healthy lifestyle. Health, not appearances should be all important for our children. :-) :hi:

[Djinn]

319. Nice one

way to reinforce prejudices. Yes you bloody can be bone thin and healthy. When I was I got fucking sick of people like you making snide comments about my body and anorexia and then turning around and getting outraged at people making gags about fat people.

as the other poster mentioned being OVERWEIGHT or OBESE is far far more common than being anorexic yet you talk about "health not appearances" when you have just finished making a determination on APPEARANCE ie

"because unless you're 5'10" or taller you can not appear bone thin and still be somewhat healthy"

So it's OK to make an assumption on someone health if you think they're too thin but not too fat?

[ShortnFiery]

336. I'm not reinforcing prejudices, I'm stating what has been revealed

by social science. The phenomenon of anorexia and bulimia has expanded in incidence since the 1960s and 1970s, i.e., when fashion began touting bone thin models such as "Twiggy."

The taller you are, the more you can appear bone thin, yet maintain enough percentage fat to remain nourish yourself without having to feed on your muscle tissue and/or organs. :scared:

As is revealed by many runway models or elite long distance runners (low body fat during competition)? After your body fat falls below a crucial point, you don't have regular periods and cannot become pregnant. Why? It's the body's self-protection.

No, the experts will agree with our Moms ;) :it's NOT HEALTHY to be significantly overweight (obese) NOR to be significantly underweight.

If you live "on the edge" (anorexia and bulimia) during your teens and claim "I'm just naturally thin" you'll pay with health problems and organ failure later in life.

Note also that anorexics and those unfortunate individuals wasting away from terminal illness are very similar with regard to the lack of body fat and "a haunted look" that is touted as sexy. :scared:

God Bless That GOLDEN MEAN. ;) It has seemingly become elusive to our harried culture of excess. :shrug:

[treestar]

12. Being an overweight woman

It is terribly offensive and don't tell me what not to feel offended about!!!!
:sarcasm: :rofl:

But seriously, I can't bother to get all excited about it. Our society is obsessed, what can you do? This is a group of people that go along with putting them down for it and put themselves down about it constantly.

The real crack up is that it is so inconsistent for men to claim they want to have sex all the time and think about it all the time, but supposedly they are so picky about the woman's weight, age, etc.

[RedCappedBandit]

317. I always see women claiming that men want sex all the time

not other men saying so
And frankly, it gets under my skin. :)

[Kerrytravelers]

14. I think the film looks absolutely ridiculous.

What is funny about someone that is overweight? How many more fat jokes are there really left to tell? And are they even funny to begin with? This seems completely unoriginal and completely boring. But, I also had no interest in Broat. I find humor when someone has set themselves up and is asking for it, like *, for example. Or mccain or any number of celebrities, such as tom cruise. They set themselves up on a platform and they are fair game. But why are overweight people fair game? And why is a film that can't possibly have any original material at this point suppose to be funny?

Count me in as completely not interested in any way, shape or form.

[BoneDaddy]

16. Everyone's a victim

no one is accountable for their own behavior. As for the morbidly obese, they victimize themselves.

We should just make movies that do not offend anyone. Who the fuck would go see it?

I, for one, am tired of the PC policing that goes on. Don't watch it.

[JackRiddler]

29. Agreed - don't watch, but...

You don't get to pick whether you watch it. (Somehow I don't think there's anything in the movie that isn't already in the commercial, except that the former lasts for 90 minutes.)

The commercial comes on without warning when you're watching something else, so you don't choose it. The billboard is up on your street, so you can't avoid it.

The real issue is that the commercial is aimed at children.

[BoneDaddy]

46. And

so you are suggesting we are conditioning people not to like fat black women? I am not too sure what the huge danger is.

[Morgana LaFey]

277. Oh, please. Sure you're not serious that you don't get it?

so you are suggesting we are conditioning people not to like fat black women? I am not too sure what the huge danger is.

Or are you saying it's perfectly okay to discriminate against fat people and black women?

I didn't think so.

What the "huge danger" is is that the movie PROMOTES discrimination against fat people and women in general and black women. The movie gives permission to ridicule individuals who are members of these groups. Apparently that's okay with you, else surely you'd have seen the "huge danger" yourself.

[treestar]

120. That's not the point

Of course no one has to watch it.

The point is that if people are going to go and protest the Snickers Ad, then why not this?

Or get offended at Joe Biden's praise of Senator Obama?

Or whether it's important enough to bother with on any particular issue, when there is so much.

[BoneDaddy]

122. It is the over inflated sense of outrage about everything

that bores the shit out of me and makes me lose hope in any real response to republican hedgemony. It is the focus on the stupid that kills any real Democratic movement.

[rebel with a cause]

152. Oh my!

"the morbidly obese, they victimize themselves." I consider myself to be a morbidly obese woman. I have not done this to myself. I do not set down and eat large amounts of food. When I was healthy enough to be so, I was physically active. On the other hand, I have several health issues that cause weight gain. For years (forty exact) I sought help to combat these health problems and was told not to worry about them. At the same time I knew men who were receiving treatment for the same issues. Women, it seems, should just expect to have fluid build up.

At the age of sixty, I finally found a doctor who diagnosed the illness that had been present for forty three years, and she began to treat me. But exactly what can she do, the weight is there and the damage to my internal organs has been done. My heart is now damaged (not really from my weight, but it doesn't help) and due to another doctor's error (comma, near death experience), I now have several other chronic diseases that the doctor in error just blames on my weight. You want to ridicule me, go right ahead but don't be surprised when you get told right where you can go and how you can get there. You tired of PC, well don't worry I won't waste any on you. In other words, you can kiss my big foot, because I wouldn't let you anywhere close to my a**.

[no_hypocrisy]

17. A better target would have been Donald Trump calling Rosie O'Donnell a

"big, fat slob" and other invectives based on her size. But the time to have done the criticism has passed.

[JackRiddler]

33. But that's one guy mouthing off...

He didn't buy hours of ad time to present propaganda about how fat people are ugly.

[no_hypocrisy]

64. I beg to differ. He was all over the place:

AOL, Drudge, Entertainment Tonight, Extra, the late shows, Larry King, the New York Post, etc. It was near impossible not to bump into DT repeating how fat Rosie's derriere was and how that demonstrated a fatal flaw in her character or something else deletorious.

[On the Road]

18. There is Absolutely a Double Standard

Parsing humor is very difficult -- it is a Rorschach test, and means different things to different people. All but the most self-aware of us are either invisible to our prejudices or satisfied with them.

Having said that, I have to say that Norbit is much more destructive humor than the Snickers commerical. It just isn't part of a current social campaign.

[LeftyMom]

21. It's tacky, but do fat people lack legal protections the rest of us depend on?

It's distasteful and deserving of criticism, but it's not the same thing and you know it.

[JackRiddler]

24. No, it's not the same.

Unless we're talking about the Snickers commercial, which did not involve a question of law or politics. In which case, Norbit is far, far worse.

ON EDIT: In New York, I have yet to see anyone with a "God Hates Fags" t-shirt, except for the moron protesters from Kansas. I have seen a number of "No Fat Chicks."

[Starbucks Anarchist]

28. Are obese people prevented from getting married solely because of that?

[JackRiddler]

31. Nope.

I constantly see GBLT compared with black. Is that really an equivalent?

This isn't a competition, however. It's not about equating one group or another.

In the context of the Snickers outrage, I think it's legitimate to inquire about this far more high-impact propaganda campaign with its far less ambiguous message of hatred.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

39. Effective comedy chooses its targets wisely.

It's funnier to see the powerful being mocked, rather than the powerless.

True, overweight people (and overweight women, in particular) are discriminated against, but not nearly to the same degree as gay people. In addition, many (though certainly not all) overweight people have the ability to change how they look -- but nobody can change their sexual orientation.

[eridani]

124. But you can choose a life without sex

You should be obligated to do that because some people don't like the idea of being gay and you need to accoomodate their sensibilities. Fat people, analogously, are not entitled to read to their kids or go to night school to improve their careers. If they aren't spending all their off-work time on a treadmill, and devoting any extra time to changing how they look, they just deserve all the public abuse that people can heap onto them.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

129. Celibacy does not change sexual orientation.

If a gay person is not sexually active, they are still gay and subject to homophobia and the discrimination that entails.

I'm assuming you're straight (forgive me, if I'm wrong) but if you choose to stop having sex or to never have sex, would that mean you're not straight anymore? No.

Oh, and for the record, Starbucks Anarchist is straight. He's just a straight guy that understands homophobia. A great ally.

[eridani]

131. Fat people who lose a lot of weight by a successful commitment to--

--lifetime semistarvation are still metabolically fat. Gay people who are celibate and not out are perceived as straight, just as metabolically fat people with significant weight loss are perceived as thin.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

132. The key phrase is "percieved as straight."

Many gay people would not be "percieved as straight" even if they were not officially "out" and were celibate.

[eridani]

133. And quite a few would be

There are actually a lot of similarities
http://www.seafattle.org/atpride.html

[JackRiddler]

143. NOW THE ABOVE IS AN EYE-OPENING LINK

I'm tempted to post it for a new thread titled, "Fat, Gay and Proud?" Thank you!

The issue is not of "equivalence," of an exact match of the social tortures applied to the different groups, or of identical properties. We can still compare and find similarities and, perhaps more importantly, reasons for solidarity.

From the link:
SeaFATtle at Pride: What's Up With That?

So why is an organization with a name like SeaFATtle showing up at the Pride rally year after year, aside from the fact that we have bisexual and lesbian members, not to mention straight members who are definitely not narrow?

(7 very good reasons given...)

If you still wonder why we're there, we suggest that you think of all the stereotypes you may hold about fat people. Write them all down, cross out "fat" and substitute "gay," and see how you feel about them. Now you know.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

141. WTF?

:wtf:

[NorthernSpy]

144. Eridani makes a good point...

Demanding that fat people diet and exercise themselves to apparent physical "normality" if they wish to avoid ridicule and discrimination is very much like demanding that gay people forego same-sex relationships or face socially-sanctioned intolerance. There is no reason to believe that chronic hunger is more tolerable or compatible with happiness than chronic lovelessness or sexual frustration would be.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

147. Demanding anyone change to fit some societal mold is wrong.

But comparing the two groups is like apples and oranges.

One group is ridiculed in the media, the other is ridiculed in the media AND legislated against, not to mention the violence perpetrated on them simply due to their sexual orientation.

When fat people are forbidden to marry, have visitation rights, etc., then get back to me. :eyes:

[ThomCat]

166. Well said.

Using discrimination against overweight people to somehow diminish the importance of discrimination against GLBT people?
:wtf:

Any excuse to justify and validate bigotry. :eyes:

[Starbucks Anarchist]

167. As if discrimination is a zero-sum game.

:hi:

[eridani]

228. That's what all the posters who say "just lose weight" are in fact saying n/t

[Starbucks Anarchist]

232. Nowhere did I state fat people should be discriminated against.

Stop making things up.

[Djinn]

322. is it bigotry

for health services to discriminate against smokers? is it discriminatory for my boss to fire me and not my colleague if he works harder than me.

For the OVERWHELMING majority of overweight and obese people they have reached that point over YEARS of bad behaviour, if and when I get lung cancer I will have no problem with people telling me I brought it on myself - because I did, regardless of an addiction I still made the CONSCIOUS decision to smoke.

If you make the conscious decision to have more calories in than out then you shouldn't expect sympathy from people for your weight. I would not insult someone for being overweight because I generally don't go around making comments about other people BUT if a snide remark was made about filthy cigarettes I'd feel it perfectly reasonable to make a simialr remark about weight.

[eridani]

394. You can't "decide" how your caloric intake is managed.

You can't take in less than you "need", because if you eat less your body will adjust to use less. The Cooper Aerobics Institute studies have conclusively proven that when fitness levels are controlled for, obesity disappears as a cardiovascular risk, so you can conclude nothing about anybody's habits from their weight.

The human body is not a simple single system where the first law of thermodynamics can be observed in a Physics 101 manner:

calories calories
consumed - burned = z

x - y = z

where z is some final state:
-z (weight loss)
+z (weight gain)
0 (homeostatis)

When you add multiple recursive factors (as in human bodies) to an equation, as in:

(P * (W(P * W(x-y))) = z

where P is the endocrine system
and where W is some other influencing system in the body
then calculating z is now much more complicated. x-y=z describes only the boundary condition. However, the ultimate values in kilocalories of x and y are dependent upon the influence of P and W, which may vary because of varying influences upon them. There is no such thing as a "First Law of Human Endocrine Systems".

Most people are confused about what 'consumed' and 'burn off' actually mean.

Mitochondrial ATP uncoupling for heat generation is known to be one of the major energy utilization systems of the body and could account for 20-50lbs/year of weight gain for people whose basal temperature is under normal.

There are active control systems which reduce the amount of energy used involuntarily for many of the body's autonomic functions. There are also significant energy excretion systems which are active. Oversimplifying somewhat, the following equation is a little closer to reality.

C - N - S - I - H - E - V = 0


C = calories eaten
N = non-absorbed calories excreted in bowels
S = calories stored
I = calories calories used involuntarily (muscle maintenance, involuntary motion)
H = calories used for heat generation
V = calories used voluntarily (exercise, for example)
E = calories excreted in urine (Examples: fat converted to glucose in the liver and excreted
in the urine, incompletely burned triglycerides which are excreted in the urine, and
albumin excreted in the urine)

It should be noted that there is "manual" control only on C and V. People who think of human metabolism as a bank account are willfully ignorant that these other variables adjust automatically within an active control system. All adjust when some of them change. When C and V are changed voluntarily, there may be permanent alteration to the control system (as in long-term dieting).

The amount of energy stored is not 'whatever is left over'. The body actively stores or mobilizes energy from its energy store. If there is a resulting energy deficit, it tries to increase C, causes a reduction in I, H, and E, and even actively prevents V. If there is an energy surplus, it tries to decrease C, increases I and H, encourages V, and, as a last resort, increases E.

The control systems for these actions are decentralized. So it is possible for the energy store to believe that it needs to increase S, while simultaneously, the liver believes that it is necessary to increase E. This leaves I, H, and V at an extreme disadvantage. There is quite a bit of genetic variability among people here.

If the individual is not lethargic and ravenous, then the control system is not imbalanced, but just has a different equilibrium than the average. One may wish that the equilibrium were different, but the system is not amenable to voluntary control (especially by "manually" varying C)-- there are strict limits to an individual's ability to change it.

Decreasing C (dieting) has been shown to cause a long-term decrease in H and a long term increase in S, and to prevent I from increasing when V is increased. Millions of dieters have experienced this. Obesity researchers have verified this.

Conclusion--eating less and exercising more will never, ever produce the same results for all people, and people who stay fat despite reducing calories and increasing activity are not your inferiors who deserve your public abuse and discrimination.

[NorthernSpy]

184. only ONE state prohibits unwarranted job discrimination on the basis of height and weight...

That would be Michigan. In all of the others, you can be fired, not hired, or denied a promotion purely because the boss dislikes or disapproves of your body -- even if your height and/or weight have no bearing on job performance:

One study cited in Tipping the Scales of Justice: Fighting Weight-Based Discrimination found that 16% of employers admitted they wouldn't hire an obese woman under any conditions. Another 44% reported they would only hire them under certain circumstances.

By contrast, over half the states prohibit discrimination against gays in public employment, and at least 19 of those states extend those protections to those employed in the private sector.


Also, contrary to what you seem to believe, fat people are indeed victims of assault perpetrated by those who target them because of their weight:

May 3, 2002 -- What started out as a leisurely stroll beside a lake in Monterey, Cal., last May resulted in a humiliating and terrifying incident that Jennifer Craig cannot forget.

At 419 lbs, the 23-year-old stay-at-home mom was feeling good about being out of the house that day to take in the fresh air and get some exercise. That was, until a truck of young men pulled up and began harassing her.

"You fat blimp!" one yelled.

"You whale!" said another.

"You fat ass bitch!" the men shouted as they pelted her with empty soda cans and other debris from inside their vehicle.

That day, Craig walked to her car, drove home and cried. And one year later, she is still so haunted by the incident that she dreads stepping out of her door and facing again what so many people her size live with every day -- fat hatred and size discrimination.

For more eye-opening info, please see http://www.tolerance.org/news/article_tol.jsp?id=505 .

[Starbucks Anarchist]

188. That's the first case of its kind I've ever heard of.

And again, are fat people forbidden to marry? Are they denied visitation rights and other similar rights?

Is there any major religion you know of where fat people are condemned to hell by its followers? Do you know of any cases where a fat child was kicked out of their home for being fat?

[JackRiddler]

191. No.

Which is why there is no 100-percent parallelism. All your points are valid. (Are you sure that fat doesn't come into a judge's subjective judgements on visitation rights, by the way?)

Meanwhile, in the TV, popular culture and media of the day, gay is increasingly acceptable - thank goddess - whereas fat is the subject of many hours of abuse and attack ads.

Apples and oranges, but both are fruit and both are worth having.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

196. I see more fat people on TV than gay people.

Fat characters were on TV from the beginning (The Honeymooners), while gay characters have slowly crept into the medium for only a few decades.

Discrimination against either is wrong, though, absolutely.

[JackRiddler]

189. As though a law against this can make any kind of immediate difference

Anti-discrimination statutes can only go as far. So when they fire you, like they're going to say it's because they don't like looking at you? Of course fat people are disadvantaged (as are those judged less attractive by their peers, all other things being equal). But it's not socially acceptable to call someone ugly, whereas we compound and encourage, indeed celebrate this prejudice against the fat.

Do you remember that study, I wonder if you know it, that found that when asked to express their dislikes about various types of people (categories like race, relative disability, etc.) far and away the most unpopular group with the kids was the fat?

Anyone recall this, have a link?

[eridani]

218. When gay people get refused health insurance for being gay--

--get back to me. At least some places have laws against anti-gay discrimination. Only Michigan and Santa Cruz have laws against discrimination on the grounds of size.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

220. Oh, Jesus.

After all that you've read in this thread, you can't possibly claim fat people have it worse than gays.

And last time I checked, most fat people can lose weight.

[eridani]

224. And most gay people can just avoid having sex

And since when does weight loss necessarily move you out of the "fat" category?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

225. What does gay people having sex have to do with this?

You can be gay and NOT have sex, you know. By your logic, all straight virgins can't be straight.

And last time I checked, losing a lot of weight CAN take you out of the "fat" category. What makes you think it doesn't?

God. :eyes:

[eridani]

227. Ex-fat people are never metabolically thin

Why do you think society's demand that you starve in order to be socially acceptable is any different from society's demand that gay people not have sex in order to be socially acceptable?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

229. That's a false premise.

A) You can lose weight and NOT starve. It is possible, you know.

B) Idiot homophobes would still hate gay people even if they weren't having sex.

[eridani]

236. Right. Like you can change your skin color by staying out of the sun

Hey--works for me. The less time I spend in the sun, the lighter my skin his. Now why doesn't this work for black people?

Plenty of people can't lose significant amounts of weight except by starving. That some people can is just about as relevant as my experience with sun exposure and skin color is to the average black person.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

245. And absolutely no gay people can "become" straight.

Which trumps the fact that some fat people can't lose weight.

And why didn't you address my response to your premise about gay sex? Is it because I destroyed that argument?

[eridani]

251. Any gay person can act straight

--marry heterosexually, and function heterosexually. All it requires is closing their eyes and imagining that their opposite sex partner are same sex. Plenty of gays and lesbians manage to become parents that way. Should they therefore be required to do that in order to have full citizenship status?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

260. No, not any gay person can act straight.

I can pass for straight. Honestly, I don't know how, but straight people think I'm actually straight half the time.

There are A LOT of gay people who could not pass for straight. There are A LOT of gay people can not act "straight."

God, your ignorance just gets more and more brash.

Why don't you just close your eyes and become straight if it's so easy? I expect to see this shit on FR.

[eridani]

267. Substitute "fat" for "gay" and you just might get it.

I agree with you--I'm just challenging your stance that fat is easier to change. It is just about exactly the same level of difficulty.

It is not acceptable to require that gay people act straight in order to be full citizens, regardless of how easy or difficult it is for them as individuals.

It is not acceptable to demand lifelong starvation from fat people in order to be full citizens, regardless of how easy or difficult it is for them as individuals to comply with this demand.

[Djinn]

325. of course it's not

It is not acceptable to demand lifelong starvation from fat people in order to be full citizens, regardless of how easy or difficult it is for them as individuals to comply with this demand.

Did anyone here suggest for a minute that overweight people shouldn't be considered citizens? Just as, as a drug user I am still a full citizen, however getting all self righteous if people view my drug use negatively is ridiculous.

Can you cite one single doctor (who actually has expertise in the area not some GP fat guru pulling info out his bum) that claims that anything but a tiny minority of overweight/obese people have medical reasons for their weight.

[eridani]

380. Weight is detemined genetically

We now live in a society where most work is sedentary and where most people have enough to eat. Our genetics evolved to deal with hard physical labor and intermittent starvation, true for some people much more than for others. If you think that people in the latter group are obliged to recreate an 11th century lifestyle just to get basic respect and decent treatment, you can go straight to hell.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0%2C%2C1515405%2C00.html

Also, Dr. Stephen Blair of the Cooper Aerobic institute has done a number of studies demonstrating that when fitness levels are controlled for, the correlation between obesity and heart disease disappears entirely.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

262. I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make anymore.

Oh, wait, you never had one. :eyes:

[eridani]

269. That being fat is no more susceptible to change than being gay

--and at any rate, the rest of society has no fucking business demanding such changes regardless of how easy or difficult they may be for any given individual.

[Djinn]

327. wow

really, are you honestly trying to claim that being fat is not something one can change anymore than one's sexuality? WOW. Never mind biological facts just keep stating the lie that fat people have no control over their weight (excluding the statistically insignificant percentage for whom there are underlying medical reasons)

ever heard of endocrinology or metabolic chemistry? I think you should look into both because you're claims are simply fantasy.

it is also ridiculous to state society has no right to make "demands" on individuals? If my taxes pay for your medical care because you CHOOSE to do something that is not good for your health, how is that not my business? Should your taxes have to fully fund treatment for smokers and drug users? If they do, does that give you some right to an opinion.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

329. Is one in five American women statistically insignificant?

It is estimated that one in five American women have borderline or undiagnosed hypo(low) thyroid. Doctors blow off women who say they are tired, and go by the blood tests and not how the patient feels. They don't want you to take the cheap animal byproduct stuff, because they've been brainwashed by the drug companies that make lots of money off synthroid. I've argued with several endocrinologists about what kind and how much thyroid to take.

I have it, it hit me at about age 10 as an autoimmune disease, and it can kill you eventually. I have to take thyroid my entire life. Look up "myxedema" and "Hashimoto's Thyroiditis".

I was of normal weight when I was a kid and a young adult. I've always been a very picky eater. My mom and grandma constantly nagged me to eat food that I hated. They thought I would starve to death. I've been to a diet doctor and on a severely calorie restricted diet and couldn't lose more than about fifteen pounds, when I needed to lose 50.

http://www.stopthethyroidmadness.com

(Website by a woman who swears by Armour natural thyroid, as I do).



http://www.thyroid-info.com


There are plenty of other hormonal problems that people have, and they affect where the fat collects. I have a friend with polycystic ovary syndrome. She had a stomach stapling and had to have it reversed, because everything she ate was coming back up and she was starving to death. She's obese but has lots of energy and is very active.

[eridani]

387. PCOS is another case of reversed logic

The extra hormone production caused more insulin resistance which causes the weight gain, not the other way around.

[AnnieBW]

433. Thanks for the Link!

I'll have to check it out. I have a lot of those symptoms, but borderline TSH levels, as well as PCOS/insulin resistance.

[eridani]

374. You can change it only with the same degree of difficulty that you can change your sexuality

You have control only over your behaviour. You have ZERO control over what effects your behavior has on your weight. I have a doctorate in biochemistry, so I know perfectly well that metabolic chemistry has no analogous relationship whatsoever to bank accounts. Poor nutrition does not make people fat--it makes them heavier than they would otherwise be. Improving nutrition does not make fat people thin; it just makes them weigh less and become healthier.

And, yes, taxes should fund treatment for smokers and drug users. What's your next "reform"? Making people fill out questionnaires about whether they let their kids play with matches or store oily rags in the basement before you send out a firetruck to put out their fires?

[flvegan]

278. Really? Back that up, poster.

And then justify why they should have to.

Then, and only then, let us all know how often you've done this such that you can make this statement.

If I'm taking this in the wrong context, I apologize. I see this as an attack on my GLBT brothers and sisters, and that makes it an attack on me.

[eridani]

286. It is an attempt at reductio ad absurdam

The unreasonable requirements that society has of gay people (suppressing their sexual orientation and faking it with heterosexual relationships) are exactly identical to similar requirements that society has of fat people (spend every non-working moment actively fighting your metabolism with semistarvation).

http://www.seafattle.org/atpride.html

[NorthernSpy]

350. hmm -- so much support for gay rights seems to be conditional on homosexuality not being a choice..

Have you noticed that? And isn't it odd how vehement so many people become in insisting on that point?

I mean, why should even matter to non-homophobes to what extent pursuing same-sex relationships is chosen behavior? Why do so many people here seem to assume that if homosexuality is to any degree chosen or modifiable, that this should necessarily undercut the case for protection from discrimination? Me, I make NO such assumption, because I just don't think that way.


Keep up the good work, Eridani! I've enjoyed your posts in this thread.

[eridani]

373. Well, religion (or lack there of) is close to 100% choice

That kind of discrimination isn't acceptable either.

[JackRiddler]

378. Interesting point...

I remember when the dominant progressive paradigm was that sexual desire develops in childhood, that it exists on a continuum between gay and straight (with a lot of possible variations), that this might evolve during one's lifetime, that each of us is sovereign and free to explore and do as we will, and that what we do as consenting partners is nobody else's business -- and generally beautiful. Now you're born either fully gay or fully straight.

I don't know whether this is related to the predominant biologistic ideology, which seeks to explain every human behavior by genetic determination. The homophobic world contends that gay behavior is wrong; the tolerant world's answer seems to be, not that gay behavior is NOT wrong (and none of the homophobes' business), but that it's physically determined - which may be true, but off the point. Biologistic homophobes respond to this idea by seeking a medical or genetic "treatment."

[eridani]

388. Biology and genetics just set ranges

These are pretty deterministic, just like the structure of a piano determines that it cannot possibly sound like a trumpet. However, what limits are there to the number of tunes you can play on a piano? None, I think--a really huge diversity of sound is possible.

Avoiding genetic explanations can be pretty oppressive too--just ask all the "cold" mothers who used to be blamed for their kids' autism.

[JackRiddler]

393. I think sexuality is a lot more complex than "ranges"

And that we're probably attuned to love each other, a drive that can attach to different objects during childhood (not that there is any way to control what attachment will develop - it will be arbitrary).

Your point about autism and the idiocy of simple anti-biologism is well-taken.

[JackRiddler]

409. I don't think I've seen a single statement here wherein

anyone claims "fat people have it worse than gays." (Where's the scoreboard of oppression?) Whereas I've seen quite a few that are extremely dismissive, some to the point of feeling provoked at the idea that fat people should not be ridiculed and discriminated against (in formal/legal terms) for being fat.

[Djinn]

323. smokers get refused health insurance

should we all wail and moan about how mean people are discriminating against them? Why is the lack of willpower (again according to ALL experts the overwhelming majority of people have NO medical reason for their weight) for a fat person something that should be coddled but lack of willpower for smokers should be condemned?

[NorthernSpy]

339. the thing is, I haven't argued in favor of discrimination against smokers...

smokers get refused health insurance should we all wail and moan about how mean people are discriminating against them? Why is the lack of willpower (again according to ALL experts the overwhelming majority of people have NO medical reason for their weight) for a fat person something that should be coddled but lack of willpower for smokers should be condemned?

Which "experts"? All we know is that people tend to resemble their biological relatives according to body mass index -- even if adopted into a family characterized by different body types and habits than those of the family of birth.

Also, where have I ever argued in favor of discrimination against smokers? You see, my own position on these matters is consistent: I do not expect other people to live lives of chronic hunger, craving, lovelessness, or sexual frustration for the sake of my own sensibilities.

[eridani]

377. You have to eat to live. Smoking is not required

Your "experts" are paid by the same people who pay scientists to say that global warming isn't real. Weight loss is a very profitable industry, in case you haven't noticed. Being fat is caused by living in a society where most work is sedentary and there is enough to eat, where many are genetically set up to face what people have dealt with for most of our history, namely hard physical labor punctuated with intermittent starvation. And if that's such a bad thing, why does our life expectancy keep increasing?

[LeftyMom]

335. Gay people can't get on thier partner's insurance in most of the country.

In much of the country people can't adopt kids, just for being gay.
In much of the country people can lose out on visitation with their own kids, just for being gay.
In much of the country people can be refused employment or let go, just for being gay.
In much of the country people can be refused housing, just for being gay.
In much of the country people can be refused medical care, just for being gay.

Need I fucking go on?

In case you haven't looked around, shit isn't anywhere near that bad for fat people, because half the country'd be broke, unemployed, missing their kids and living in their car if it were, because we're the fattest people on the whole damned planet. You need to find a new disingenuous argument, because this one's fucking retarded.

[eridani]

375. You are confusing being fat with being somewhat heavier than average

The "obesity" problem results from lowering the weights that are considered overweight, making most people "overweight" without any actual changes in their weights, and without being actually visibly fat. People who are actuall fat are refused adoption, have their kids taken away, refused employment and housing and refused medical care. This is not acceptable for anybody.

[LeftyMom]

151. Celibacy doesn't change orientation.

I haven't had sex in longer than I care to think about (Long distance relationship.) I'm definitely still sexually attracted to men, and I'd probably spend much less of my day thinking about it if I were actually getting some.

PS That argument is lame when the Catholic Church uses it, too.

[ThomCat]

165. That is the most bigoted thing I've read on DU

and there's a lot of bigotry here to choose from.

"You should be obligated to do that because some people don't like the idea of being gay and you need to accoomodate their sensibilities."
:wtf:

[NorthernSpy]

175. no, read it again -- it's a counter-argument to an argument someone else made...

"You should be obligated to do that because some people don't like the idea of being gay and you need to accoomodate their sensibilities."

For gawd's sake, do you really not understand that the poster is making a counter-argument, not advocating a course of action?

I mean, really now!

[ThomCat]

177. I don't see the eyes or the sarcasm smiley

and given the context of this subthread, are you sure it's really a counter argument?

It looks pretty damned serious to me.

[NorthernSpy]

179. would you find pictorial aids helpful?

It's okay if you do. I reckon I could oblige.

and given the context of this subthread, are you sure it's really a counter argument?

On the contrary, the context -- and the poster's other remarks -- make it clear that the poster is making a counter-argument.

[kiahzero]

371. That says more about your deductive skills than anything else.

It is 100% clear to anyone with any sort of logical reasoning that you're wrong.

[eridani]

219. It's called "Reductio ad absurdam" n/t

[flvegan]

268. ThomCat, my friend, my brother...

Ignore posts based in bullshit ego. I'm fighting the desire to throw the gauntlet myself.

Matter of fact, don't just ignore them...laugh at them. I personally feel the need to apologize for the words of others around here.

I stand behind you with a hand on each shoulder, buddy.

[rebel with a cause]

155. If you chose to you can hide your sexual orientation

There is no way I can hide my weight. And no I cannot lose enough of it to make a big difference. My weight is caused by several different factors, not by my choice. I now have to use a wheel chair if I am on my feet for very long, more that 15-30 minutes, and people look at me with a "look at the fat slob who is too fat too walk" clear on their faces, and there are open snickers from some. My inability to be on my feet for very long is not from my weight, but from injuries and health issues non weight related.

I have been thinking about how the sixties were different than how things are today and why the protest worked then and not now, and I have come to a conclusion. The movements then were united. The civil right, anti war, and other movements all united. When there was a protest for civil rights, all the people were there but the focus was on civil rights. When there was an anti war protest, all the people were there but the focus was on the war. when there was a women's lib protest, all the people were there, but the focus was on the women's rights. Now it seems all the causes are having a d**k measuring contest. If there is anything posted here about one problem, all the others show up to complain that this isn't as bad as what they have. The same is going on with the candidates. We cannot be a group when we are so busy focusing only on the issue that affects us. It is all just another reason for people like me to stay away from here and concentrate on trying to be healthier.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

200. Gay people can "hide" it to an extent.

But fat people are still treated better than gay people overall.

A majority of this country would be considered "fat" -- anything from mildly overweight to morbidly obese. However, only a small portion of this country is gay. Fat people have strength in numbers, so to speak.

[eridani]

270. That's odd. I've been told exactly the same thing only in reverse--

--by a Christian conservative fat lady. Amazing how the two positions sound so similar, no?

http://www.seafattle.org/atpride.html

[LeftyMom]

65. Either you're willing to abandon all sense to win an argument,

or you have a shocking lack of perspective.

Being fat is treatable. Being gay is not.

Being fat is harmful. Being gay is not.

Being fat carries no legal consequences. Being gay carries significant ones.

Being fat limits your sexual options. Being gay limits your sexual options (especially if you live in an area with a high degree of stigma.)

For what it's worth, I don't see you complaining about gay stereotypes in cinema. Do I trust the next movie featuring a straight man playing a campy gay male hair dresser/interior designer/whatever (a far more common scenario than the fat suit and fart gag Eddie Murphy thing) will have you in a similar lather? Uh, no.

[JackRiddler]

74. Who turned this into a competition?

Being fat can be hereditary and untreatable.

If we went after stereotypes in the cinema, it would take all year.

You're missing an important point: The Norbit ad campaign. Not at the cinema, but taking you by surprise if you happen to watch tv, or see a billboard, with a clear message that fat people are sub-human because they are fat. Said message aimed at children.

[LeftyMom]

80. Why does that bother you but the idea that being perceived as gay should be avioded at any cost

including violence not bother you?

I'm not setting up any sort of hierarchy of competing victimization- I don't think we as a society should be silent in the face of discrimination based on size or sexuality. You're the one who is trying to compare levels of offensiveness in order to make a point about the snickers campaign and tell gay DUers that they're wrong to perceive it as offensive and homophobic, and you're trying to set up equivalence that doesn't exist.

What I'm just saying that degrading a potentially temporary identity that's often not central to a person's self-perception is not as harmful as degrading a permanent one that's often central to self-perception.

[Marnieworld]

95. temporary?

If you have ever seriously, I mean seriously, struggled with your weight there is nothing "temporary" about it. The experiences that you have as an overweight child or teenager shape your identity completely. Your self-esteem is shaped by all of the experiences you have and if you are overweight your experiences are very affected by it. When or if you do lose weight and to strangers appear as if you never had a problem, you still identify with being overweight. It is fundamentally who you are, everything, especially as a woman, is filtered through this. It is often very central to a person's self-perception as someone who is or is not worthy of love? romance? Social inclusion? Acceptance? You internalize all of the hatred directed towards you. People don't have to say a word. Your own self-hatred is the weapon. Even when at a socially acceptable healthy weight after being fat when someone derides fat people THEY ARE STILL TALKING ABOUT YOU. You live your life cataloging memories based on what size you were, aware of who has seen you at which size.

Once you are a fat person that is you for life. The scale may change but you always identify with being someone who did get heavy. No matter what I weigh I take this type of thing personally and I always will. Nothing temporary about it.

[LeftyMom]

97. I used to weigh 165 lbs. I'm 5'2.

I currently weigh in at 122.

Yes, being fat is often temporary.

[NorthernSpy]

113. you claim to be ex-fat, and other people claim to be ex-gay...

... and I certainly have no reason to doubt you or them. There are fat people who eventually reach and maintain a significantly lower weight, and there are gay people who eventually form long-term heterosexual relationships. Such transformations are hardly typical for either fat people or for gays as a group, but that's neither here nor there. I'm really more interested in fanning away the stench of red herring which perfumes your contributions to this discussion.

You see, this is the thing: the temporary nature of a given condition, trait, or tendency has nothing necessarily to do with whether persons exhibiting that condition, trait, or tendency may require or should receive protection from discrimination. After all, religious beliefs may change overnight -- literally -- but we've never viewed the impermanent nature of religious orientation as a reason to refuse to protect citizens from discrimination on the basis of creed.

[LeftyMom]

114. Well, there's this.

My present size is observable and verifiable. I can't lie about it. Furthermore, I have no incentive to do so. "Ex-gays" frequently get caught being a bit less than ex, but in any case we can't verify that their nature is changed, only their external behavior. In short, we know that they marry and have sex with women, and have no evidence whatsoever that doing so makes them happy, that they like it or that those relationships are lasting and healthy.

Being fat or slender isn't central to the identity of an emotionally healthy person. Sexuality is. the two are not comparable.

[NorthernSpy]

138. racial origin probably "isn't central to the identity of an emotionally healthy person" either....

And neither is having a physical disability. But we still protect people from discrimination on those grounds. Even if the racial origin in question is undetectable without an exhaustive genealogical search, and even if the disability in question is temporary, in the sense of being curable.

My present size is observable and verifiable. I can't lie about it. Furthermore, I have no incentive to do so. "Ex-gays" frequently get caught being a bit less than ex, but in any case we can't verify that their nature is changed, only their external behavior. In short, we know that they marry and have sex with women, and have no evidence whatsoever that doing so makes them happy, that they like it or that those relationships are lasting and healthy.

Yes, appearances can be deceiving. But this is true with regard to body fat percentage, just as with regard to sexuality. It is quite possible to maintain a high body fat percentage while at a "healthy" BMI. (I'm speaking generally, you understand -- not about you specifically). But even if this were not the case, so what? The extent to which a given condition is readily detectable has no bearing on whether we protect people from discrimination on the basis of that condition. And why should it?

In short, we know that they marry and have sex with women, and have no evidence whatsoever that doing so makes them happy, that they like it or that those relationships are lasting and healthy.

We have no evidence that dieting makes people happy over time, and considerable evidence that it generally does not. We do know that cures for fatness are about as successful in the long run as cures for gayness: permanent ex-gays and ex-fats certainly seem to be the exceptions, rather than the rule. Apparently, a lifetime regimen of restricted, sub-satiety eating is no more tolerable for humans than a lifetime of sexual and emotional frustration would be.

But again, so what? All of this is irrelevant to the issue of who needs and should receive our protection from intolerance and discrimination.

[ThomCat]

343. WTF?

Racial origin isn't central to identify? Disability isn't either? :wtf:

What world do you live in? If you spend your entire life listening to people describe you primarily and predominantely based on your race or your disability, when people boil you down to nothing but a race or disability, it does become central to your identity.

You only have to look at the voluntary segregation of people by race in social situations to see this, or talk to any of us who have permanent disabilities.

And are you really taking ex-gay fundamentalist ministries seriously?

Wow.

[eridani]

126. 165 isn't fat, just mildly overweight

I used to weigh 240, and now I weigh 200. A 40 lb weight loss is chickenshit, and makes no difference to the status of most fat people.

[LeftyMom]

150. Did you catch the part about me being 5'2"

Christ, I apologize that I wasn't fucking enormous enough for you. I guess that means I don't get to have an opinion. :eyes:

[NorthernSpy]

174. Wow! Now, just imagine an "ex-gay" person saying something comparable...

Christ, I apologize that I wasn't fucking enormous ___(fill in the blank)___ enough for you. I guess that means I don't get to have an opinion.

Again, you do your argument no favors.

[LeftyMom]

176. This is rediculous.

I was fat. But apparently as I was only 1/3 again of my healthy size, with a BMI of 31 (that's officially obese, boys and girls,) I really wasn't fat enough to come to the opinion that being fat is not a permanent condition. When I point out that this is, to be charitable, completely fucking retarded, I get compared to Ted Haggard or some other self-hating asshole paddling up the river denial.

I have better shit to do than to argue with people who lack sense. Go bother somebody else.

[NorthernSpy]

192. ridiculous how?

I was fat. But apparently as I was only 1/3 again of my healthy size, with a BMI of 31 (that's officially obese, boys and girls,) I really wasn't fat enough to come to the opinion that being fat is not a permanent condition. When I point out that this is, to be charitable, completely fucking retarded, I get compared to Ted Haggard or some other self-hating asshole paddling up the river denial.

I have better shit to do than to argue with people who lack sense. Go bother somebody else.

Speaking of sense...

The problem is that you cannot seem to come up with a rational argument for what you claim. No -- maybe you can come up with a good argument for your position. All I know is that you haven't done it yet.

Also, as you must know, nobody compared you "to Ted Haggard or some other self-hating asshole paddling up the river denial". I have merely pointed out that given that the "ex-gays" are wont to make similar claims and remarks about their own experiences, your argument about the incomparability of fatness and gayness pretty much just boils down to special pleading.

[LeftyMom]

194. No, my argument is that the OP's claim that they're comparable is bullshit.

Until we ban fat people from getting married or punish fat people more for sex crimes than we do thin ones, it's not the slightest tiny bit comparable.

[NorthernSpy]

198. six of one...

... and a half dozen of the other:

Until we ban fat people from getting married or punish fat people more for sex crimes than we do thin ones, it's not the slightest tiny bit comparable.

On the other hand, gay people enjoy more protection under law from employment discrimination than fat people do. Over half of the states ban discrimination against gays in public sector jobs, and at least 19 of those also protect gays from on-the-job discrimination in private sector employment as well. But only Michigan currently protects American workers from unwarranted height/weight discrimination.

Is it worse to be denied official recognition of ones marriage, or is it worse to be denied -- with the state's blessing -- the opportunity to earn a living?

Me, I don't know which is worse. I'd say that either of those could harm a person's dignity and thwart his pursuit of happiness.

One study cited in Tipping the Scales of Justice: Fighting Weight-Based Discrimination found that 16% of employers admitted they wouldn't hire an obese woman under any conditions. Another 44% reported they would only hire them under certain circumstances.

http://www.tolerance.org/news/article_tol.jsp?id=505

[LeftyMom]

201. Obesity is covered under the ADA.

That's not perfect, but it's a hell of a lot more protection than gay people have in most of the country.

[NorthernSpy]

211. are you suggesting that gays would wish to have their sexuality declared a disability?

I doubt that most would want that, even if such a move were to result in immediate, solid, across-the-board protection and accommodation. The thing is, gays as a group are not disabled by their sexuality, but rather by other people's reaction to it.

The same is true of fat people. Most fat people are not actually rendered disabled by their fatness. And as a point of fact, is just any degree of fatness eligible for disability status in the first place? I don't believe it works that way.

In any case, if gay people would not like to have their homosexuality declared a disabling defect, then why should fat people feel any differently about their own endomorphy?


(edited for clarity)

[flvegan]

264. So then, by your own admission, it IS a disability.

Regardless of want, it's the reaction of others. On both sides, yes?

I don't really know, I guess. I've never been gay, but I've been obese. Matter of fact, according to the BS BMI, I still am.

[NorthernSpy]

337. eh? not sure what "it" is meant to refer to...

So then, by your own admission, it IS a disability.

Regardless of want, it's the reaction of others. On both sides, yes?

What's "it"? Gayness, fatness, or both?

Whichever you meant, I have made no such "admission", nor have I argued categorically that there could not possibly be any manifestation of fatness (or of homosexuality, for that matter) capable of disabling a person. An extreme of obesity that results in loss of ordinary mobility would be a disability, and I suppose that a sexual compulsion that harmed social functioning might also be considered disabling. (Keeping in mind that extreme thinness may also be disable a person, and that sexual compulsions can form part of a heterosexual orientation as a well a homosexual one.)

The point is that most fat people -- like most gay people -- are not actually disabled by their size or sexuality. And I doubt that most of them would be eager to have a claim for increased protections made on false grounds that contradict the reality of their lives. Do you disagree?

[spooky3]

434. No, it is not (generally speaking).

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/obesity-discrimination-lawyers.html

Please provide a link to support what you are saying.

[ThomCat]

344. She's doing just fine.

Believe it or not, there are arguments in the gay community over who's "gay enough." I've seen arguments over who's "enough of a feminist," over who's "black enough," and over who has a "real disability." This shit happens over and over and over again to try to belittle people and remove them from discussions.

I think LeftyMom hit the nail squarely on the head with her response.

[eridani]

217. You don't have the right to call other people who also lost 40 lbs-

--pieces of shit because their weight loss does not remove them from the "fat" category.

[flvegan]

263. You know, I looked

but I failed to see where the poster did this. Specifically, I failed to see where the poster called anyone a piece of shit because they lost 40 pounds, nor where it removed them from some "fat" category.

Enlighten me, please, poster.

[eridani]

271. They implied it, which is the same thing

Anybody who touts their own weight loss as a reason why any fat person really ought to be able to do the same thing is implicitly bullying those other people.

I mean, really. If black people don't like racism, why don't they just stay out of the sun? Works for me--the less time I spend in the sun, the lighter my skin gets. If your average black person spends as much time as I do indoors and their skin stubbornly stays black, they must be doing something wrong, corretct?

[flvegan]

274. That's a 9.5 on the Idiotic Scale

So if I tell you that I lost 90 lbs, became a personal trainer and sport nutritionist, help others without charge, bench over 400 and have biceps that rival the pros that I'm bullying other people? It's not a reason, it's an example. It's not bullying, either.

Implication, btw, is not the same as a base statement. Implication is like perception. It's based in the eye of the beholder. That would be opinion, btw.

[eridani]

275. Yes, if it's in the context of a thread about public abuse of fat people

More of that "credit to your race" bullshit.

[flvegan]

276. You're gong to have to come clear on this one.

"Credit to your race" and all?

Gauntlet thrown.

[eridani]

284. Not sure what level of density I'm having to address here

Black people having to demonstrate their creditworthiness by having twice the income of a white family applying for a similar home =

Gay people being required (in order to get basic respect and citizenship rights) to ignore their sexuality and marry heterosexually =

Fat people being required (in order to get basic respect and access to jobs and health care) to spend every minute of their spare time enforcing self-starvation and treamilling on themselves in not often successful attempts to maintain normal weight.

[ThomCat]

346. You, yourself, present the difference.

Black people are denied credit (and basic respect). Gay people are denied citizenship (and respect). Overweight people are denied respect, but nothing else. Discrimination based on race and sexual orientation denies people basic necessities in our society, like legal protection, the right to travel unmolested, the right to our own relationships, the right to be treated the same as everyone else in the legal system, etc.

Nobody denies that our society doesn't treat overweight people very well. There is a lack of respect. However, you don't see cops and security guards following fat people around in stores. You don't see heavy people fearing to move into certain neighborhoods.

Get some perspective.

[eridani]

367. Fat people are denied employment and health care

You see fat kids committing suicide because of the same kind of intensive peer abuse that gay kids suffer.

It isn't just lack of respect, it's major public abuse, which drives many to undergo surgery that has an unaaceptable incidence of complications up to and including death. $800,000 in debt, in constant pain, with her muscles not functioning and her bones dissolving despite massive doses of water soluble vitamin D, Susan Barnes committed suicide last year.

http://www.serendipit-e.com/drsusanbarnes/memorial_services/index.html

[ThomCat]

390. GLBT teens have the highest rate of suicide.

I've had doctors suggest that I look elsewhere because they don't really know how to deal with "the issues of people in your community." Last I checked, I don't have any special medical needs as a gay man.

I'm not denying that overweight people face these problems, but what's your point? How does that, in any way, diminish what happens to GLBT people?

[eridani]

395. It doesn't.

Why won't you admit that the reverse is true as well?

[ThomCat]

400. Nobody has claimed that people who are overweight

face bullying. Nobody.

Fine, you've been fat-bashed. You've been denied custody of your own kids for being fat. Your spouse's employer cannot insure you becuase you're fat. You can't safely live in certain neighborhoods because you're fat and "your kind" aren't welcome there. You aren't legally allowed to married. And until recently you weren't even legally allowed to have sex.

I see that now. :eyes:

[eridani]

402. Yes, people have had their own kids taken away because of being fat

And not just denied their partner's health insurance plan, but unable to get their own at any price. Constant public harassment in most public places, not just certain neighborhoods? Do gay people ever get possibly lethal surgery and other dangerous medical treatments to change their condition? Any of then involve heart failure (phen-fen) or dissolving bones (weight loss surgery)? Can you put on bike shorts and ride in public without carloads of testosterone-poisoned teenaged pustules trying to run you off the road?

You get denied employment for being fat, and if female you have significantly lower lifetime income.

[ThomCat]

345. You know, I looked, and I don't see it either.

I think you missed her point entirely. She pointed out, not that overweight people MUST loose weight, but that they CAN loose weight. And given that this whole subthread was discussing whether weight forms a part of your identity the way sexual orientation does, that's a valid point.

But perhaps you're just enjoying being an instigator.
:eyes:

[eridani]

368. And what if the weight loss isn't enough to make you thin?

You can decide to eat healthier and be more active, but where do either of you get this idiotic idea that you have any kind of control over what effects those changes will have on your body?

[ThomCat]

389. Anyone can point to the exceptions

and say, "that person couldn't loose weight." What's your point? NO gay, lesbian or bisexual person can change their sexual orientation.

Nobody wants to go around saying, "I'm more discriminated against than you are." That's not a game anyone wants to win. But belittling discrimination against GLBT people is truly offensive and ridiculous.

[eridani]

396. You can't change it, but you sure as hell can REPRESS it

And why should you be required to in a asne society? And why should people whose metabolisms are attuned to 11th century conditions be required to recreate those conditions in a modern society? Same difference.

[ThomCat]

399. No, you can't repress it, not and remain healthy.

And especially in the US, where obesity is an epidemic, your claim that people are required to get thin in the US is totally ridiculous.

[eridani]

403. It becomes an "epidemic" only when you lower the weight at which

--people are considered "obese". If you assume gay people don't have the right to remain healthy, then you certainly can repress it. If you can lose a job for not losing weight, I'd call that a "requirement."

[BlueStorm]

324. I am 5'2' and I weigh 195lbs.

and people consider that "obese."

Blue

[JackRiddler]

381. And you're beautiful

If I may say so, and I wouldn't dream of doing so, except that you posted a picture that positively yells it out. And "people" can all kiss our collective asses for the idiot things they say.

[Marnieworld]

91. With all that you list

You never specify why being fat is deserving of being hated and ridiculed. Just because it can be changed and is often caused by the person's behavior why does this permit people to be so very hateful? It is the objectification, the dehumanizing caricatures, that overweight people object to. I am overweight and if I don't lose weight I increase my risk of heart disease and diabetes. I don't see the connection between this and others having the right to publically be hateful towards me. And to say that this is uncommon shows that you aren't sensitive enough to see it everywhere. Fat people are discrimated against in many situations, especially in gaining employment, networking, so many circumstances where if someone has predjudice towards you it can affect your life.

Should gays not complain because they don't have the history of African-Americans. Should African-Americans not complain because Native Americans have it worse? Just because one group has issues another groups' issues aren't any less valid.

[LeftyMom]

96. You're missing my point.

Neither is worthy of ridicule, but the OP was trying to imply that the two are equivalent in some way, and that's what I find objectionable. Being fat is often temporary and treatable and rarely central to one's identity. Being gay is permanent and who we love is an important part of who we are.

[JackRiddler]

109. The two are not equivalent. n/t

[eridani]

293. If you are heavy enough, the rest of society fucking MAKES being fat--

--a central part of your identity. And the "treatment", namely a lifelong commitment to hard labor on a semistarvation diet, is no more reasonable than the "treatment" of ignoring your sexual desire and marrying heterosexually is for gay people.

[ThomCat]

347. I could concede that

Many people identify as "Fat" before anything else. It can become a core part of how you view yourself. But it still does not result in the discrimination and violence that gay people face.

[eridani]

370. No, you merely get denied education, employment and health care n/t

[ThomCat]

391. I have a permanent disability.

Talk to us about being denied access to education, employment and healthcare!

What's your point? You seem to want to insist that because overweight people face discrimination, GLBT people don't really have it so bad.
:wtf:

[eridani]

397. No, I'm suggesting that both kinds of discrimination are similar

--and equally wrong.

http://www.seafattle.org/atpride.html

[ThomCat]

401. That doesn't seem to be at all what you're suggesting.

First, the idea that they are similar is superficially true. But to that small extent, I'll except your point. But insisting that instead of talking about homophobia we MUST talk bout discrimination against overweight people INSTEAD certainly seems to say that you think YOUR discrimination is so much more important than anyone else's.

I've worked for civil rights across lines. I'm a man who is a feminist, and a white person who confronts racism. I was advocating for people with disabilities for years before I got hurt and become a person with a disability. Perhaps you need to learn how to help across lines without belitting the people you claim to be so similar to.
:eyes:

[eridani]

404. No, I'm just insisting that it be considered on an equal basis

All forms of discrimination are equally bad. I'm deliberately citing stupid statements about gay people to point out a) how ridiculous they are and b) the logical structure of the bigoted statements are exactly the same. I suppose I should be grateful that you didn't think I was serious when I said that if black people wanted to do something about racism they should just stay out of the sun. The most ridiculous by far of the three analogies, but the SAME DAMNED LOGIC. You have to either accept all three or reject all three.

[Marnieworld]

411. I got it

But unfortunately I don't think most did here. I was trying to make the same point with a different tactic.

You were pointing out the ridiculous arguements racists and homophobes use to justify the hatred and possible shameless discrimination in an attempt to correlate with bias against the overweight. People got caught up in the concept of whether someone can control being gay or Black and it even helped justify their fat bias because, by anyone's experience, fat at least has the possibility of being treated or eradicated. What many clearly just can't hear (read) is the point that hatred is hatred and cruelty is cruelty. That by allowing hatred in this case because we had a part in becoming an object of cruelty is hypocritical. Some never struggle with their weight. Many do. It's a lifetime fight often- we are who we are. It isn't a crime punishable by public humiliation or at least it shouldn't be.

Why does it matter how someone got fat or what they are doing to keep or lose that fat? Being cruel and discriminating against the obese is morally wrong period. We point out the effects of this cruelty and object to it only to hear we brought it on ourselves. I don't see the logic or connection to my problem justifying so much hate directed towards me. I don't see it at all.

If I live in a way that is destructive to the health of my body how in the world does that justify anyone, strangers especially, being entitled to be cruel to me? It affects no one, harms no one but myself but yet I have to just accept being a pariah and risk verbal assaults whenever I leave the house? Just as Black-faced minstrel shows were considered comedy at one point and now we see them as degrading people and making them subhuman cartoons hopefully there will be a day when we as a culture will not have Norbits. But not anytime soon that's clear.

We can debate exercise effects or the complexities of metabolism and the GI of foods but that's really more of a discussion on weight loss and its limitations.

Fat acceptance isn't about being Pro-Fat. It's about having the right to be treated well while I live with this struggle with my body.

[JackRiddler]

416. marnieworld I don't know why

but of all the posts yours is the one that brought me to tears. Really. Godspeed!

[Marnieworld]

418. Is that a good thing?

Thank you for this thread. It can't be a bad thing to have this discussion even if a lot of people missed the point. I have often thought about writing more about this topic in an official way. I just have to get the courage.

:hug:

[JackRiddler]

420. Please do, friend Marnie

!

[eridani]

421. Your last line says it all, IMO

I'd just observe that weight is not actually a real clue about whether or not people are living in ways that are destructive to their bodies.

[eridani]

292. Your link between fatness and diabetes is assbackwards

It's a chicken and egg problem, but we know that the genetics comes first. Being genetically insulin resistant causes weight gain under sustained conditions of adequate nutrition. Being more active and being careful about intake of high glycemic index foods can postpone onset of symptoms, and possibly make you weigh less. The latter is irrelevant, because you get the benefits of those habits even with little or no weight loss.

[Djinn]

331. I know a world reknowned endocrinologist

who would respond to your post with a snort and a suggestion that you don't talk about thingfs you CLEARLY don't understand

[eridani]

358. I understand it very well

If you want to pull rank, I have a doctorate in biochemistry and have kept up with current reading on diabetes because of my family history. What is his/her explanation of the well-documented fact that fat removal has no effect on the blood chemistry of people with Type II diabetes?

[Marnieworld]

355. good to know

Thanks. :hi:

[Scout]

412. You've got it right!

Insulin resistance ("pre-diabetes") is what makes weight control so difficult.

I've often wondered why (in my admittedly fairly limited experience) Type I diabetics are always very thin and have a hard time keeping weight on, and Type II diabetics are the opposite. Do you have any thoughts you care to share on that?

[eridani]

424. Being thin goes along with Type I just as being fat goes along with Type II

Yet you don't see people recommending weight gain to treat Type I. Insulin promotes weight gain. Type Is can't make it, and are therefore thin because intermittent injection means that you never have a steady supply of it. (Just as an example of how idiotic fat phobia can get, Type I teenage girls in a study in Toronto a few years back were observed to have significant retinal damage before they reached the age of 20 because they refused to take their full doses in an attempt to be as skinny as possible. None of the Type I boys did any such thing.)

Type II results from genetic insulin resistance, and their bodies respond by cranking up insulin levels, which promote weight gain, which worsens insulin resistance, etc in a positive feedback cycle that can get out of control. Get old enough and eventually your pancreas has had enough of that shit and no longer can make enough insulin to keep up. Ironically, either unexplained weight loss or unexplained weight gain can mean trouble for Type IIs. Gaining means your insulin levels are getting really, really high, and losing means your pancreas has given up on you.

Of the two situations, the latter is far more dangerous. In fact there is a variant of Type II characterized by insulin resistance that is not compensated for by extra insulin secretion. These people tend to be of normal weight (because of not making the extra insulin which promotes weight gain), but have three times the morbidity and mortality rate of the more typical fat Type IIs. Not that the high insulin levels of fat Type IIs are good for you--they're just a hell of a lot better than the out of control glucose levels of normal weight Type IIs.

[Scout]

428. very informative and helpful, thank you. n/t

[eridani]

125. Being gay is treatable

They just don't get to have sex--easy, wot? Being fat is not treatable--all that happens is that you might weigh less and still be fat. Living in a society where there is enough to eat and most work is sedentary is not avoidable.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

130. Not having sex does not make you not gay.

Seriously, do you honestly think that?

I was gay when I was a virgin. I was gay during "dry spells." My sexual orientation didn't change. I just wasn't having sex.

Being gay isn't about sex anymore than being heterosexual is. It's an ingrained part of you. It's about who you love.

[eridani]

134. Starving yourself into thinness does not make you metabolically thin

No I don't think that way--I was trying for reductio ad absurdam.

[NorthernSpy]

139. you appear to be right about that...

The person who must accept chronic hunger in order to maintain a lower weight is not the same as a lean person. Those who are naturally lean consistently eat to the point of satiety: they do not force themselves to avoid eating while still hungry, any more than naturally heterosexual men must force themselves to avoid checking out a hot guy at the beach.

[Morgana LaFey]

281. It's all about insulin, one of THE most powerful hormones

I'm not sure science yet has all the answers on it, but those who are overweight typically have a condition called, variously, "metabolic syndrome" or "syndrome X" or "insulin resistance." For those who are interested, it's worth looking up, or reading some of the diet books on the market that discuss the phenomenon, and there are many.

The problem is that while it's probably not impossible for people to lose weight, it can be very, very, very difficult and NOT just a matter of "willpower" or "pushing yourself away from the table" or whatever other simplistic notions the judgmental non-obese can come up with. Our whole society and culture are built on the wrong kinds of foods, the foods tht trigger inappropriate insulin responses in people for whom this is a problem (thanks to genetic predisposition?). Thus the "cure" takes an enormous commitment in time, money, effort, and yes, some willpower too (e.g., get up early enough to make the food that you have to take to work because there's almost nothing you can eat at any of the restaurants for lunch).

And most people who are obese have little or not access to the information they need to learn how to eat right and bring their insulin in line. Too, while there are certain principles that apply and can help, each person is different and even with the right information on insulin resistance and overcoming it, there's STILL no "one size fits all" appropriate diet. There's STILL going to be learning curves and trials and errors, etc.

I think the judgmentalism tht surrounds weight issues is quite mean, and arrogant as well. You cannot know what it's like for anyone else on the planet unless you've walked in their shoes. You cannot judge why a person is fat or why they're not thin or not getting thin. You just can't. You can't see into their metabolism or anything else about them.

And the whole discussion about who has it worse -- fats or gays -- is the HEIGHT of ludicrousness.

[eridani]

300. The thing is that being more active and being careful of glycemic index--

--in foods makes insulin resistant people a lot healthier even if they lose little or no weight.

That the extra fat per se isn't the problem is conclusively proven by the established fact that removing fat results in NO IMPROVEMENT OF BLOOD CHEMISTRY WHATSOEVER!

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=9962

Being more active, however, does yield improvements independent of any weight loss. This exposes the notion that discrimination against fat people is somehow justified because it is a "health" issue for the utter bullshit that it is.

[Morgana LaFey]

303. Good points. nt

[AnnieBW]

432. Oh, bullshit

I have plenty of information that tells me how to eat right. It's still damn hard to do. It's a fucking ADDICTION, people.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

146. "Being gay is treatable."

That's like saying, "Being black is treatable." :eyes:

And what the hell does sex have to do with it? All people, gay or straight, are more than the sum of their sex lives. Jeebus.

[LostinVA]

160. Thank you, SA -- this is enraging, isn't it?

I love you.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

162. It IS enraging.

Love ya back. :hug:

[Morgana LaFey]

282. I think you're right, but you know what?

I think many of YOUR comments in this thread have been inappropriate and perhaps even enraging as well.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

283. Excuse me?

What did I say that was "inappropriate and enraging"?

[Morgana LaFey]

306. Yeah

I thought that entire exchange trying to figure out who's got it worse -- gays or the obese -- was juvenile and ridiculous and insulting to BOTH groups, as if it's a competition, or something, or either group could be made more legitimate in some way by determining the right "order" of importance or harm or whatever.

Bah.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

310. Then you missed the point entirely.

I never claimed or implied that one disadvantaged group was more legitimate because of society's views of them.

However, I was pointing out that fat people are treated better than gay people in this culture -- a statement that was brought about by other posters claiming fat people were discriminated against to the same degree as gays.

Nobody should be discriminated against -- fat, gay, or otherwise -- but to imply that fat people are discriminated against in the exact same way as gay people is dishonest and something that I will point out unapologetically.

If my support of gay people and my statements of fact are offensive to you, I suggest you look away.

[Morgana LaFey]

318. Oh, please

If my support of gay people and my statements of fact are offensive to you, I suggest you look away.

Nice way to find offense where there isn't any and play fucking victim.

However, I was pointing out that fat people are treated better than gay people in this culture -- a statement that was brought about by other posters claiming fat people were discriminated against to the same degree as gays.

And MY point is that it's a useless, childish, horrible discussion that pits one disadvantaged and discriminated against group against the other. It doesn't MATTER which one (if either) is worse off. What matters is that there shouldn't BE any discrimination against either group, and there for damn sure shouldn't be a fucking competition on the matter.

Frankly YOUR resentment of fat people's angst is every bit as offensive as you find others claiming equal discrimination for the obese. The discussion itself, and ALL sides of it, is just wrong. You ALMOST had it right here, and then went on to tell others how they should feel about the discrimination they experience (which you have no right to do -- and THEY have no right to rank their discrimination greater, lesser, whatever compared to others):

Nobody should be discriminated against -- fat, gay, or otherwise

See? GOOD start


-- but to imply that fat people are discriminated against in the exact same way as gay people is dishonest and something that I will point out unapologetically. Bad finish.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

326. Okay...

You quoted me saying this as a "bad finish":

...but to imply that fat people are discriminated against in the exact same way as gay people is dishonest and something that I will point out unapologetically.

Considering other posters were trying to equate the two, I was in the right to point out that the two discriminatory experiences, while both totally uncalled for, are in fact quite different.

Show me where fat people are not allowed to marry, have visitation rights, etc. -- and no, I am NOT saying fat people have it easy, but they certainly have not been legislated against nor been victims of hate crimes on a large scale like gay people have.

Then you said this:

"Nice way to find offense where there isn't any and play fucking victim" in response to me saying this:

If my support of gay people and my statements of fact are offensive to you, I suggest you look away.

Which I am basing partly on your halfhearted support of gay people, namely THIS:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=137283#138585

[Morgana LaFey]

407. Oh, brother.

Show me where fat people are not allowed to marry, have visitation rights, etc. -

No way I'm getting into such a conversation. I've just said: it's a stupid and just plain wrong to try to compare them. Discrimination is discrimination and it's ALL wrong, and no one has the right (IMO) to try to rank them or make one "better" or "worse" than another type. It's all evil and wrong.

your halfhearted support of gay people, namely THIS:

Yeah, and THAT shows just how much YOU know. Here are some clues for ya:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=137283&mesg_id=138585

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=142420&mesg_id=143388

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=141950&mesg_id=142086

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=132354&mesg_id=133930


BUT, I think the point I made in that thread you cited is quite valid, nonetheless. So can I expect to see you weighing in one threads that discuss sexism and misogyny? Hmmmm????

[Starbucks Anarchist]

410. In the thread I linked to, you qualified your support of gay people.

The OP asked a simple yes or no question, yet you gave a mealy-mouthed answer, one contingent on your particular issue. No matter what else you said in the threads you linked to, the fact that you said what you did in swimboy's thread essentially cancels out anything else you mentioned about the subject.

No way I'm getting into such a conversation. I've just said: it's a stupid and just plain wrong to try to compare them. Discrimination is discrimination and it's ALL wrong, and no one has the right (IMO) to try to rank them or make one "better" or "worse" than another type. It's all evil and wrong.

I have repeatedly stated in this thread that fatphobia and homophobia are both wrong. However, for anyone to actually claim that both are EXACTLY alike -- like other posters in this thread have been trying to do -- is ludicrous.

Oddly enough, I don't see you attacking them. I wonder why? :eyes:

[Morgana LaFey]

415. I see

the fact that you said what you did in swimboy's thread essentially cancels out anything else you mentioned about the subject.

Well, in that case, I think it's safe to say that everything you've done and said cancels this out: I have repeatedly stated in this thread that fatphobia and homophobia are both wrong.

I've also yet to see you weigh in on sexism and misogyny. You, in fact, are insisting on acquiescence for YOUR issue, and categorically avoiding any response on my issue while criticizing ME for having priorities and giving a damn that some men who otherwise should don't lend a hand of support. Yes, that IS important to me.

It's important to me because misogyny and Patriarchy's desire to control women is at the base of homophobia -- and yet DU's gays and lesbians don't even seem to KNOW that, let alone help fight against the misogyny that makes homophobia possible.

It's important to me because ALL oppression is not just wrong, but linked. If we fight each other instead of Patriarchy, we all lose. And that's exactly what the Patriarchy wants. It keeps the Patriarchy in power.

It's important to me because I'm tired of fighting the sexism here at DU with no men joining in on our side, and the GAY men -- like you, I presume -- are the ones who should be front and center, and yet they're not.

It's important to me because of a principle called mutuality that I try to follow in my personal life. It means: if I have a relationship (friendship, business, work, whatever), that relationship better have some mutuality in it or I'm not going to participate. Period, end of story. IOW: I can't be the only one in a relationship taking care of said relationship. (This came up one time years ago when I discovered I had a couple of friends whose whole life story I knew and yet they didn't know a damn thing about me. This ENDED one day after spending about an hour on the phone with one of those so-called "Friends," listening and commiserating over her miserable life, and after she'd fully vented her spleen and felt all better, she comes to her senses and asks me, "SO, how are YOU?" (And please note: mutuality doesn't require exact equivalency -- just BOTH parties participating, not just me.)

I apply that to this issue at DU as well. A little give and take isn't too much to ask of our gay community.

Now, if you think I care that you take exception to all that, you're crazy. I don't care if you LIKE it, I don't care if you UNDERSTAND it, I don't care if it makes you stark raving mad, and I don't care how much you want to whine and cry about it. The Gay Men (and some women) of DU can either "get it" and participate in fighting sexism here, or they can do without some of the support they could otherwise have had from me. It's that simple. I've done plenty over my years to fight homophobia and will continue to fight it to some extent because there is no real division between that type of oppression and ALL the others. But I wanna see some of the ones who expect to TAKE (support for gay issues and rights) right here at DU also give (support for feminism and against the rank misogyny that is here at DU day in and day out).

Together, we can make tremendous strides. Fighting one another (or ludicrously arguing over whether one type of discrimination is worse than another), we won't.

Frankly, your stupid fight over which is worse contributes to the lack of proper focus and could easily be construed as sexist since women are dying from anorexia and bulimia and are far more at risk of suffering from weight discrimination than men.

So, we're done. And let me just repeat: If you don't LIKE my attitude, it couldn't be of any less concern to me. Work on yours or forget it.

Oh, and why did I take it up with you and not anyone else engaging in this ridiculous "discussion"? -- because you were the one who said something which naturally pulled me in.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

417. Right...

Well, in that case, I think it's safe to say that everything you've done and said cancels this out: I have repeatedly stated in this thread that fatphobia and homophobia are both wrong.

How so?

I've also yet to see you weigh in on sexism and misogyny. You, in fact, are insisting on acquiescence for YOUR issue, and categorically avoiding any response on my issue while criticizing ME for having priorities and giving a damn that some men who otherwise should don't lend a hand of support. Yes, that IS important to me.

It's important to me because misogyny and Patriarchy's desire to control women is at the base of homophobia -- and yet DU's gays and lesbians don't even seem to KNOW that, let alone help fight against the misogyny that makes homophobia possible.

It's important to me because ALL oppression is not just wrong, but linked. If we fight each other instead of Patriarchy, we all lose. And that's exactly what the Patriarchy wants. It keeps the Patriarchy in power.

I wasn't criticizing you for being concerned with misogyny -- I was criticizing you for engaging in a quid pro quo with combating homophobia when the thread in question posed a simple request with no qualifiers. Did you notice most people in that thread gave a yes or no answer?

It's important to me because I'm tired of fighting the sexism here at DU with no men joining in on our side, and the GAY men -- like you, I presume -- are the ones who should be front and center, and yet they're not.

First of all, I'm a straight man. I'm just standing up for my gay friends. Secondly, if you had actually read the misogyny threads, you would know that many gay male DUers (and also lesbian DUers) ARE trying to fight misogyny as well. I know these people personally and can vouch for them.

Together, we can make tremendous strides. Fighting one another (or ludicrously arguing over whether one type of discrimination is worse than another), we won't.

You may not like the fact that fat people have it comparatively easier than gay people, but it is true. That's not a ludicrous argument -- it's a fact. Yes, on a moral level, fatphobia and homophobia are equally wrong. But in real life, gays are subject to more discrimination as a whole.

Frankly, your stupid fight over which is worse contributes to the lack of proper focus and could easily be construed as sexist since women are dying from anorexia and bulimia and are far more at risk of suffering from weight discrimination than men.

Reaching, to say the least.

So, we're done. And let me just repeat: If you don't LIKE my attitude, it couldn't be of any less concern to me. Work on yours or forget it.

Likewise. :eyes:

[eridani]

226. Of course being black is treatable--all they have to do is stay out of the sun

I have no idea why that won't work for them. It works for me--the more I stay inside, the lighter my skin gets. My experience obviously proves their inferiority and lack of discipline. That some peoples' weight loss moves them into the average weight category likewise must mean that people who are still fat regardless of some weight loss are just doing it wrong.

All people, fat or thin, are more than the sum of their body size. Jeebus.

[LostinVA]

338. I cannot believe you are still allowed to post

After all of your anti-gay/ex-gay shit, and now this. Jesus Christ.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

382. Homophobic AND Racist! Double the fun!

[eridani]

386. No, just attempting to point out that homophobia, racism and anti-fat bigotry--

--are all based on the same idiotic logic. I'm beginning to undertand why the economics professor who wrote a parody advocating slavery decided not to send it out, because it occurred to him that there are all too many idiots out there who would have taken him seriously.

[sniffa]

340. you obviousLy have a very fat dog in this hunt

what the fuck is wrong with peopLe?

[bicentennial_baby]

349. ....

:spray:

haven't had my morning coffee yet, but that did the trick, thank you :D

:loveya:

[eridani]

359. Just general bigotry, assholeism and wanting to feel better at other people's espense

--whether at the expense of gays, fat people, ethnic or religious minorities. Just the usual.

[LostinVA]

159. Being gay is NOT treatable, because it is not a disease, nor anything "abnormal"

You have NO right to tell me how to live my life, nor to tell me I have no right to fall in love and be with that person.

And, if you honestly think this, than I believe you're on the wrong website.

[NorthernSpy]

169. yeah, it's a lot like fatness in that respect...

Some people think both fatness and gayness are pathological conditions, and some of those people think that either or both can be "cured" or changed. Other people think these are not pathologies, and are either changeable or not, depending on the individual. Other people think that certain aspects (or "extremes") of these things may be pathological, but that otherwise they probably do not harm the individual.


Me, I just argue that neither of these things is generally a legitimate reason to deny someone a job, or a loan, or an apartment, or a promotion -- or their human dignity.

[JackRiddler]

180. I believe you're misinterpreting eridani

But please don't flame me!

Eridani's "gay is treatable" is meant ironically on the "treatable": a person can "treat" themselves by denying their natural individual desires and re-closeting themselves. She(?) is comparing this to congenitally fat people who are hounded by culture and the diet industry to "treat" themselves by starvation, speed pills, quack cures, etc. but for whom there may not actually BE a credible "treatment."

In the same way, mentally "deviant" people might be "treated" with electro-shock or other damaging "therapies" that change nothing in the underlying condition.

In the same way, by the way, black people historically found ways to "treat" themselves, under pressure from the white culture. If they were light-skinned, they might try to "pass" as whites. Otherwise, they might adopt an aggressive version of "white" culture, or use cosmetics to lighten their skin and straighten their hair.

[eridani]

223. I think I probably need to use the sarcasm icon more

Glad that at least some on this thread get it.

[JackRiddler]

246. Actually I find that icon impoverishing

Then again it may be necessary -- assuming we no longer all speak the same language.

[Bluebear]

163. BEING GAY IS "TREATABLE"????

Slowwwwwly I turned.

[flvegan]

279. Being stupid is treatable.

Grab the Yellow Pages or hit the Google.

To me, and I hope I'm corrected if I'm overstepping here, "being gay" isn't that. One is homosexual, just like one is heterosexual...or bisexual, or whatever. It's like saying that "being straight" is treatable. Suggesting that something is "treatable" is like saying something is a disease and NEEDS to be treated, or is otherwise wrong and correctable.

Folks that are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered or otherwise "treatable" are NOT in the wrong. They just are, just like me. And THAT is the bottom fucking line.

Disprove it if you can. I dare anyone to do so.

I dare anyone to do so.

[eridani]

288. Scratch out "gay" and pencil in "fat"

That's my bottom fucking line--same difference.

[flvegan]

298. Fair enough. I've done that

and yet...your bottom line isn't so extreme. I'd really like to meet on middle ground here.

"Gay" and "fat" will never be equal, nor should it be.

[eridani]

305. No, they aren't the same, and neither is the same as black or Native American

What unites all of these groups is being subjected to completely unjustified discrimination, hatred and public abuse.

[HEyHEY]

290. The problem with society is there isn't enough people to screw

[ThomCat]

348. Being Gay is treatable?

Not having sex means we're not gay anymore?
:wtf:

Where to you get that from?

[eridani]

360. It means that your are much less offensive to the general public--

--if you ignore your gay desires and establish visible heterosexual relationships, just as fat people are much less offensive to the general public if they succeed in starving themselves to a reasonable approximation of average weight.

[ThomCat]

363. Funny, I had people harrassing me for being gay

long before I ever slept with a man. I think you don't know what you're talking about.

[eridani]

372. And fat people don't get harassed?

Plenty of gay people stay in the closet successfully, despite the fact that some can't. Some gays can hide more easily; some fat people can lose more weight than other fat people. Same difference.

[ThomCat]

392. Agreed.

So what's your point? Why are you trying to belittle discrimination against GLBT people?

[eridani]

398. I'm trying to make anti-fat bigotry look as idiotic as anti-gay bigotry n/t

[eridani]

135. Yes, fat can be treated. Sometimes it involves death

http://www.serendipit-e.com/drsusanbarnes/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=337&topic_id=1792#1926

How does this differ from the suicides by gay teens who can't handle the torment anymore?

[LostinVA]

161. You need to go to PFLAG meetings and sensitivity training

Jesus Christ. Even my crazy Repub redneck relatives would laugh at this garbage.

[JackRiddler]

183. Are you sure this isn't because

even "crazy Repub redneck" relatives have picked up a minimum sensitivity and tolerance to gay people during the last 20 years of gradual cultural evolution, whereas all fatties remain laughable, apparently including adolescent children ridiculed to the point of suicide?

[eridani]

222. Suicide on account of extreme side effects of weight loss surgery is garbage?

I'd say that it's a tragedy when a gay kid commits suicide because of unbearable harrassment, and equally a tragedy when fat people do the same for the same reasons.

[CanuckAmok]

280. Can I buy some pot from you?

n/t

[HEyHEY]

289. What if you're fat and gay?

[JackRiddler]

313. Fat & Gay? See following URL and posts 133/143 n/t

http://www.seafattle.org/atpride.html

[Djinn]

328. Go LeftyMom

While no-one is saying it's a good thing to be insulting to anyone (does anyone really think anyone posting here is gonna watch that shitty movie) it is insane to act like an individuals weight has no bearing on society and has nothing to do with the behaviour of overweight people.

[eridani]

361. The necessary "behavior" for metabolically fat people to approximate--

--average weight is an entire lifetime of hard physical labor on semistarvation rations. Anyone who thinks this ought to be required of fat people to deserve being treated without discrimination and contempt can just go fuck themselves.

[valerief]

26. I never understood the premise of Shallow Hal. Jack Black's

character falls in love with Gwyneth Paltrow's fat character, but Jack doesn't see Gwyneth as fat. He sees her as beautiful. So he's still falling for the beautiful chick, albeit she's an illusion, not the fat one.

I wish they'd make a slew of movies about women who are repelled by men with little dicks. That might put an end to size-ism.

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

40. I actually thought Shallow Hal has a good message

(preface: I am slightly overweight). Essentially, it was about Hal, a very superficial man who likes only supermodel-like women), who, under a 'spell' of sorts, could then only see women for the beauty within. So, he started seeing the Gwyneth Paltrow character, who was a very large person, as a beautiful woman who is intelligent and caring. He also sees other people not for what they look on the outside but for who they are on the inside (examples: children with disfigurements, people with disabilities, etc.). Eventually the spell comes to an end and, after some ensuing 'drama', he continues his relationship with the Gwyneth character ending up in some remote country in the Peace Corps.

The moral: inside beauty counts more than outward appearances.

[Catherine Vincent]

55. I thought it had a good message also.

I thought the movie was great.

[valerief]

208. See msg 207. nt

[valerief]

207. He saw the fat girl as thin and fell in love with the thin girl. What we saw

through his eyes was what he saw. So he fell for the thin girl, even though she was really fat.

Not a good message.

[kestrel91316]

32. I think it demeans us to pursue this sort of trash when we have

got bigger fish to fry.

We are faced with global warming, peak oil, impending economic catastrophe, imminent nuclear war, and a host of other serious problems.

To spend our energy on a TV commercial during a useless "sporting event" or an entertainment film is to buy completely into the Bread and Circuses.

I'm sure KKKarl is writing a few DUers some big checks for their help. Please don't be one of them.

[JackRiddler]

37. Ah but...

ultimately I agree with you. This thread is not meant to inspire a campaign against Norbit. It is meant to ask: By what cultural mechanism do group emotions and thus priorities arise?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

34. Absolutely not.

That movie makes fun of nerds. Not fat people. It should be nerds that are outraged.

[Scout]

35. I just won't see it ... it looks stupid. I don't generally see movies

that are aimed at 15 year old boys. Which many of them seem to be these days...

Eddie Murphy used to be funny, but I think he jumped the shark about the time of "Coming to America."

[Catherine Vincent]

57. What?

I thought "Coming to America" was very good!

[Scout]

86. poor choice of words

I did like Coming to America ... I meant he jumped the shark sometime AFTER that movie.

Sorry for the confusion.

:hi:

[Catherine Vincent]

115. Whew!

And to think what Samuel Jackson had to go through to get that little part he had in this movie. It was a small part but it was memorable. "Who the f*ck is this *sshole!" LOL!

[Missy Vixen]

36. Consider the source

Frankly, I've never considered Eddie Murphy an evolved enough person to determine why his attempt at "humor" would be offensive to an entire group.

Julie

[JackRiddler]

38. So as long as someone's unevolved...

they can't do something offensive? Bush is unevolved too...

[Missy Vixen]

43. My response was inartful

It's absolutely offensive, but Eddie Murphy would not be the person to realize it. He's made quite a fortune off of fat jokes. It's all he has. He doesn't have the talent (or the self-examination,) to figure out that perhaps, it's time to find a new act.

In the meantime, I'd like to tell the poster who stated fat people are never subject to attack that when he boards an airliner and hears a complete stranger call out, "God, I hope she's not sitting next to me," he can tell me whether or not the fat are physically and verbally attacked in our society...

Julie

[Catherine Vincent]

59. What a hurtful thing to say!

:cry:

[diamidue]

61. well, i hope whoever sat next to that stranger

had a screaming baby, body odour, and a flatulence problem. ;o)

serve 'em right.

[RaleighNCDUer]

41. No.

The antagonist in Norbit is fat. That's a given. She is also violent, bullying, overbearing, obnoxious, and completely unable to see herself as others see her.

That's where the joke is.

The only reason it was done with the fat suit was so Murphy could do his multiple character schtick. The same story could have been told with the Norbit character being 5'2" and Rasputia being 6'6" and not fat, but Murphy playing both parts required the fat suit to amplify the difference between them.

Allegorically, it is about a person being caught up in something so much bigger than himself that even when he sees an alternative (in this case Thandie Newton) it seems to be unattainable, and he has to go to extreme measures to extricate himself.

Kind of like having the republicans in charge.

We are all Norbit.

[JackRiddler]

49. All that being the same...

The commercials are still dependent on the premise that fat is (deservedly) physically repulsive.

The reactions of disgust shown by the people at the mere sight of the Norbit antagonist are based on her being fat, not these other qualities you mention. These reactions look a lot like those of the NFL players seeing the Snickers commercial.

[rpgamerd00d]

77. Well, fat really is physically repulsive.

Do you have a problem with The Hunchback of Notre Dame, too, because he is portrayed as physically repulsive?
Because he also really is physically repulsive.

Why is it that something that is physically repulsive cannot be portrayed as physically repulsive?
You want lies instead?

[JackRiddler]

83. Um... I'm going to come out now

I think fat is attractive, and so do a lot of other people. BBWs, baby! (Not as much as in the case of Norbit's antagonist, but certainly I like women who are literally double the size of the poor gaunt things held up as the ideal of beauty.) But yeah, you may be representing a majority taste in sexual partners. So what?

The point should be that the Norbit marketing clearly celebrates this repulsion, and equates fatness with individual worthlessness.

[rpgamerd00d]

88. I disagree.

Shallow Hal and Norbit are two movies that depicted fat women.

Yet, look at the personalities of the two characters - totally opposite.

It makes no logical sense to say that you can't portray someone fat as bad. Why? Only skinny people are bad?

What about Fat Bastard from Austin Powers? Is he insulting too?

[eridani]

127. Being gay and/or black is physically repulsive too.

:sarcasm:

[rpgamerd00d]

153. Don't be ridiculous.

There are no physical traits of gay people or black people.
Everyone looks unique.

[rebel with a cause]

156. All fat people do not look the same either.

As you said, everyone s unique.

[rpgamerd00d]

172. They share a physical attribute - human cellulose.

And that is repulsive.

I've seen many flat-out gorgeous women who's immense amount of cellulose disgusted me.

[GirlinContempt]

193. well black people share skin pigmentation

at the very basic level of shared physical attributes.

[rpgamerd00d]

199. Differing skin colors are not repulsive, though.

[GirlinContempt]

210. I didn't say they were

I'm just saying there is a shared physical characteristic

[NorthernSpy]

197. humans do not produce cellulose

:wtf:

You're either trying to be funny, or trying to demonstrate why you flunked Introductory Bio.


Or are you trying to say cellulite?

Interestingly, the presence of cellulite is linked to a lower risk of developing cardiovascular disease.

[rpgamerd00d]

203. Oops, I meant Cellulite. (yes, I did badly in science classes)

[Name removed]

299. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Book Lover]

234. So it that an excess of rhetoric or what?

Now you're just not making any sense. You've seen women who are gorgeous who you were repulsed by? With apologies to William Goldman, "I do not think that word means what you think it means."

[rpgamerd00d]

244. A person can have a very beautiful face, but be fat.

That's what I meant.

[uppityperson]

297. Cellulose? OMG!!! That is hugh!!!

[Name removed]

140. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rpgamerd00d]

154. Wow, how liberal of you to make a personal attack !

Aside from the fact that it violates the rules of DU, its pathetic.

Fat is physically repulsive. Its a fact. Its not an opinion.

My own brother is obese. Not fat, not overweight, not "chubby". He is obese. Hugely obese.
I love him more than you could possibly know, and I would give my life for him.

Guess what? His weight is physically repulsive.

Don't sit at your keyboard, somewhere across the internet, and try to psychoanalyze me. I own my own home, I have a child, I am a member of my Democratic Town Committee, I volunteer for charity events for children and the sick and elderly. I went to NY City after 9/11 and helped distribute the supplies and food that people sent in from around the country.

If you are fat, I have news for you. Your fat repulses people. Even people you love and who love you. Your repulsiveness has nothing to do with what kind of person you are. Your repulsiveness has nothing to do with your worth to society. It has to do with your health, and your personal self-image. It says to others that you do not care about yourself enough to change your lifestyle.

Don't go attacking me just because fat is repulsive.

[JackRiddler]

157. MODS, ABOUT THE ABOVE... (#154) PLEASE DON'T DELETE

If you're tempted, please don't remove it - it's honest and avoids vulgarity. What rpgamerd00d feels and says on this is shared by tens of millions of others, and very relevant to this discussion as an example of their attitudes.

[rebel with a cause]

158. Honey, my fat may be repulsive to you

but your attitude is repulsive to me and that is much worse. My weight is something I bear, your attitude is a burden on others. I pity you. I honestly do. I just want to cry thinking about you and those who love you. Bless you LITTLe heart.

[rpgamerd00d]

171. And what attitude is that? Honesty?

Oh, yes, lets ban honesty.

Lets all pretend that fat is "dead sexah!"

I have no problem with people being fat, nor do I judge anyone, ANYONE, by their weight. Virtually ALL my close, close friends are overweight, and some are plain fat. And as I said, my own brother is obese.

I have No Idea why you think that my being 100% honest and saying that human fat tissue is disgusting and repulsive makes me some kind of bad person.

[rebel with a cause]

187. Honesty is one thing and that is not what you are being.

To say that you are not attracted to fat people/tissue would be honest. To say you are repulsed by fat people is crude and spiteful. You see there is a difference between being honest and being downright and intentionally hurtful.

You don't hurt me with your crudeness, I have had far worse said to me. I have dealt with people like you all of my life whether I was thin or fat, and those experiences have taught me that you are someone to be pitied. I have never thought that I am sexy, not even when I was thin. so to be told that my fat repulses you only makes me shrug and think "so what, because you really don't matter to me any more than I matter to you. Of course, I would also like to rub your face in a bowl full of suet just for jollies. My bad.

I am being honest when I say that I am repulsed by your attitude, which I find to be crude and spiteful, and when I say this I am being nice about the matter because there is far worse things I could say about you. There is strangely something missing from your personal make up. I feel it in your words and your not having any compassion for how you make your fellow human beings feel. And this callousness is what makes you less than a good person in my eyes. I suspect that you probably surround yourself with "close friends that are overweight/fat" because it allows you to have a feeling of superiority. I could be wrong, but I doubt that I am. I've seen this in too many people with attitudes such as yours.

Good luck to you, and I hope you find some way of reaching a place in your life where you can remain honest while taking into consideration how what you say and do makes the other person feel. Not much to ask for, if you think about it. Just using a little tact with your honesty.

[rpgamerd00d]

202. Thanks, Senator Frist, for the internet diagnosis.

I have close friends because I am honest with them, not because I lie or because I keep my comments to myself. My friends trust me and rely on me because they know I will always tell it like it is. Damn, I wish more of our congresspeople would do that.

I have no problem telling a complete stranger that human fat is disgusting and repulsive. Because it is. If you are the kind of person that doesn't like to hear the truth spoken to you frankly and straightly, then you've got the wrong guy, because I tell it like it is. Keeping it to myself does not make fat any less repulsive.

This is the internet. I have no idea what a poster on this board looks like. I don't know who is fat and who is not. I never called a poster fat, and I never singled anyone out and told them I was repulsed by them. I made a generic post about fat being repulsive. In no way did that posting single out ANYONE. Therefore, tact has nothing to do with it. Some people CHOSE of their OWN FREE WILL to reply to my generic posting and TELL ME that they are fat and they were insulted by my posting. Why in GODS NAME would they do such a thing? It was clear that they could have said nothing, and that my posting was not directed at them. Yet somehow, you and others accuse me of being insensitive and tactless ? Sorry, that doesn't fly with me.

If there is one thing I will never, ever apologize for as long as I live, it is telling the 100% undeniable truth. I literally do not care who gets offended by it, because clearly, anyone that is offended by the truth has some serious problems.

[rebel with a cause]

248. I appreciate your claim of honesty.

Because I have been 100% honest with you and you evidently do not like it. You are rude, I am honest. There is a difference. If you cannot see that, then you are the one that has a problem and not me. You see I admit I am fat, I am honest with myself as well as with others. You do not hurt me or insult me, because I frankly don't care what you think of me. I was trying to point out to you that what you were was crude and hurtful, as it would be to others. Frankly, I can look in the mirror and see myself for who I am, but I doubt you can do the same. And my diagnosis still stands because it is based on your words and not on a film of you laying in a coma. There is a difference there also, perhaps you should do some looking in the mirror and see if you can find some honesty about yourself and why you feel the need to tell everyone how repulsed you are by human fat. That is an awfully big hangup that seems very prevalent in your psyche.

[Djinn]

332. Right wing people repulse me

is that spiteful and crude or just the way I feel. Yes this is a poster who can't tell the difference between his opinion and fact but it is not spiteful to say "I find XYZ repulsive", to say "XYZ isrepulsive" is also a statement of opinion and clearly to claim it as fact is wrong but it is not spiteful to find something unnatractive, my personal likes and dislikes don't have to take your feelings into consideration

[rebel with a cause]

341. Okay, I will try to make this clearer for you.

To find ones behavior repulsive is one thing. Hense, I said that I found this person's attitude repulsive. This is something that one can change or at least control. You can even find a physical attribrute personally repulsive, but you do not have to state it in that manner because this is often something the person afflicted cannot help or change. This makes it crude, cruel and spiteful, because it is a physical attribrute and something that may not be controlable. For example, some people may find those who have lost limps to disease/injury repulsive. Would you support their right to tell that person that they do so, or would you encourage them to be more polite about such feelings and either keep it to themselves or state that they find it hard to accept or deal with their feelings about such matters. Call it being PC, but I just call it having some consideration for the people concerned.

If you are overweight, like many of us are, you do not need someone telling you that they are repulsed by the sight of you. We have gotten that message loud and clear for many years from society. We are often repulsed by our own fat, but being repulsed does not always mean that you can or will do anything about it. Self repulsion often in fact makes the matter worse, since depression usually does not make a person healthier, and having someone else telling you that they find you repulsive does not help either. As for me, I could care less what this person, or anyone else, thinks about me and my fat. It came gradually without me being able to stop its coming, and I have learned to live with it and the attitudes of those around me. I am more than the fat that I carry around with me, and I am more than what some idiot may say about me.

As far as having to take someone else's feelings into consideration when you state your opinion, no one has to do that. But consider what this world would be like if we all stopped considering the other person. We would all be like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reillys; we would all be saying exactly what we think without regard to how it affected those around us. We would all be selfish a**es and if you ask me there are enough of those around without me becoming one of them. I personally am repulsed by people who judge by how someone looks, repulsed by those who do not care enough about their fellow human beings to consider their feelings, repulsed by selfishness that what they think is more important than the pain they might cause by their words of condemation. Because yes, for this person to tell his friends that he is "repulsed" by their fat is just that. He could chose his words more carefully and express his repulsion in a less demeaning manner, but to be repulsed openly is not caring - it is condemming and that is not a friend. These are just my opinions and you have the right to reject them, just as I have the right to reject anyone who feels their insults are ok because they "look" better than I do.

[Missy Vixen]

216. Do they know the truth about how you feel about them?

>Virtually ALL my close, close friends are overweight, and some are plain fat.<

Have you made sure to share with "all" those friends how physically repulsive and less than human you find them to be?

Perhaps I should be 100% honest as well, and say that I am very, very thankful there is nothing more than a small chance we will ever meet IRL.

Julie

[Name removed]

230. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Missy Vixen]

240. Considering the fact that I did not lie in my response to you

you're pretty off base calling ME a liar.

Julie

[Name removed]

241. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Marrah_G]

164. I find you far more repulsive then any fat person

[rpgamerd00d]

173. Its a shame you find honesty repulsive.

See my reply above.

[GirlinContempt]

195. Here is the thing about honesty.

People do enjoy it, however full disclosure is not necessary for honesty.
I could be 100% honest with all my friends, and hurt their feelings INCREDIBLY, for no good reason. I have no REASON to say hurtful things to them, they don't need to know, the only outcome will be hurting them. So I'm honest when it matters, where it's important, and keep some things to myself because hurting people essentially for the sake of hurting them might be honesty, but it's still slimy and nasty and not going to get you a lot of respect.
It might be 'honest' of me to tell the guy standing next to me in line at the grocery store that he smells bad/is too short/has bad taste/needs a haircut, but is it necessary? No.

[rpgamerd00d]

205. See, my philosophy in life is opposite of yours.

I think it is harmful if I do not tell the guy in line next to me that he smells. Because by withholding that truth, that guy will continue to live a life of loneliness and lack of friends. By telling him in a non-insulting way, I let him know that he needs to work on his hygiene. While he may be offended for that moment in time, he will remember the incident, and might set about to improve his hygiene, which in turn might help him in his social life.

I think its a mortal sin to withhold the Truth in the name of fake sense of respect.

[JackRiddler]

247. Do me a favor, rpgamerd00d

I think you've made your points, as have the others in this subthread. You find fat repulsive, and they consider the way you express it repulsive. So let's leave it at that and not derail discussion altogether.

[blonndee]

256. Woo hoo!

rpgamerd00d FINALLY got TSed! Not only did he find fat "repulsive," but he has serious issues with race and sexual orientation and caused a whole lotta shit the last couple of weeks.

GOOD RIDDANCE, and THANK YOU MODS!!!

[JackRiddler]

259. Well there we go...

Not so surprising. "Honest" is one thing, rude and crude with unwarranted 'tude is another.

I'm glad they left his comments up as they are important illustrations for the discussion on this thread.

[uppityperson]

294. THANK YOU MODS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

seriously, thank you thank you thank you. No more bs about people getting raped are responsible for it. No more sex, race, sexual orientation, anything different difference nasty bullshit crap. THank you mods!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

[ContraBass Black]

425. In his final weeks, he even surpassed the great Bench.

[Kerrytravelers]

430. Amen. This was a long time coming.

I was completely disgusted when he declared that African-Americans should just "get over it." What a horrible thing to say. And what a horrible was to live your life, looking for fights and being hurtful.

Thank you Mods! :woohoo: :woohoo: :bounce: :bounce:

[uppityperson]

301. we find your narrow minded opinions called "facts" repulsive.

[Book Lover]

231. self-delete

I'd rather not waste my time

[lesab]

44. silly.....

Don't you know that fat people are the only group of people that it is still ok to ridicule and make fun of? Hurting people is great as long as they are fat because everyone knows that fat insulates them from actually feeling anything hurtful. They don't care about themselves or they wouldln't be fat, right?


SARCASM!!!!!\\


I wish that basic human decency still was the rule rather than the exception.

[northzax]

45. what about really thin people, huh?

no one ever talks about them being discriminated against, yet New York City is considering legistlation mandating that models during fashion week must be a certain size or larger. I vote to boycott New York.

By the way, the wife in Norbit is also a manipulative, repulsive person, you forgot that part.

or we can just all get over this compulsion about bodies and move on with our lives.

[JackRiddler]

47. The commercials...

Sorry, I missed Norbit. The commercials are the real issue, since these are what people see involuntarily. They do not make much of her personality, and even if they did, they still transport the clear message of fat=disgusting=deservedly repulsive.

[manic expression]

48. Let's just campaign against it because it looks like a terrible movie n/t

[Catherine Vincent]

50. I was offended by the previews of this movie.

So I have no plans to see it and if anyone mentions to me about going to see it, I will give them an ear full. Shame on Eddie Murphy. And no, it's not the same as "Big Momma's House" with Martin Lawrence (I didn't see that one either but I don't think it was offensive).

[sniffa]

51. jeez, you reaLLy need to Lighten up

i wonder how many back handed threads can be started on this topic? :eyes:

[JackRiddler]

53. By the way everyone...

The google ads activated by this thread make for an interesting commentary in themselves:

French people don't get fat...

Meet BBWs...

Diet pills...

[La Lioness Priyanka]

58. havent seen it

but if they equate overweight to stupid/icky/dumb then yes

[stanwyck]

62. It's like the infamous Spinal Tap album cover

it was politically incorrect because the woman was being degraded. As the agent explained it, you have to turn it around. Then, it's OK. See. It's a MAN wearing a fat suit. Not an actual actress. He's degrading, and being humiliated by, uh, HIMSELF. It's Murphy on (literally) Murphy.
So. It's OK. It's funny. That's the Hollywood version of political correctness. That little twist makes it OK. Funny.
Although, of course, it isn't funny. And not just because it's more humor at the expense of a humiliated woman.
It's just an actor wearing a fat suit for a constant sight gag.
All the laughs are on the soundtrack and the mindless will laugh along like they've been programmed to do. The trailer alone was enough to make me nauseous.
Way to go, Eddie. Follow up "Dreamgirls" with this junk.

[DianaForRussFeingold]

63. The most talented comedians were over weight!

Sad they're no longer with us! :cry: :grouphug:

[LoZoccolo]

67. Overweight people don't have web sites pointing these things out. n/t

[JackRiddler]

70. Ding!

Congrats, I think you're the first to actually address the question posed, though the rest of this discussion remains interesting. Not that websites alone would do it, but I think we both know what you mean.

Even if you remain a 9/11 denier. (In the sense of denying the obvious.)

[LoZoccolo]

82. I am not a 9/11 denier.

I simply do not believe the commercial conspiracy theory or the official conspiracy theory. It is obvious to me that it was done with a potato. It is also obvious to more people than MIHOP, LIHOP, and OCT combined.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x135345

[skipos]

89. Off the subject... what does "OCT" stand for? nt

[JackRiddler]

108. Official Conspiracy Theory (Off-Topic)

Coined in response to those who think they can dismiss skepticism about 9/11 by invoking the magic dismissal phrase "conspiracy theory," as though 19 hijackers acting alone without foreknowledge of the plot would not be a conspiracy. LoZoccolo is labeled as an OCT defender in Democratic Underground's 9/11 dungeon, where almost all threads questioning the official theory get banished, whereas I am a 9/11 skeptic and one of the few reasonable people among the frequent posters there - caught between the believers of faith-based paradigms who are busy bashing each other's strawmen ;-)

But I'd better stop - I'm hijacking my own thread here.

[eridani]

128. Actually, they do.

http://www.naafa.org/

[NobleCynic]

68. How about you protest it because it has Eddie Murphy in it

That alone is a good enough reason.

[rzr77]

69. as soon as we get one for skinny geeky men (like norbit)

who are bullied openly and often violently, and never given cultural "props" for all the innovations they bring to society (like these here internets, for example).

I think perhaps whoever made the movie thought they were making fun of both a man and a woman, therefore it balanced out.

What it all boils down to is "looksism". humans nature sucks, will always bully the weak to the benefit of the strong.

[JackRiddler]

72. Norbit is not presented as a disgusting, physical offense to normal sensibility.

[DrunkenMaster]

73. Don't Like It?

Neither do I. The solution is simple: don't give the filmmakers or Eddie Murphy a dime of your hard earned cash.

Unfortunately this film will make those involved a lot of money even without our patronage: the maxim that you can never go broke underestimating the taste and intelligence of the general public is sadly true.

We are a culture of trash. Love it or hate it, it is still true.

[JackRiddler]

75. No danger of that...

That I will pay for that movie, I mean. But the commercials get beamed into my house anyway. And remember, this isn't a matter of choice. I can choose which program to watch, but not which commercial comes on.

[JacksonWest]

76. Would a campaign hurt the movie or give it free publicity?

Let's say a group speaks out against the movie. All that's going to happen is they will make an appearance on the "Today Show", and they will run clips of that movie, and Matt Lauer will end the interview by saying something ambiguous like "is it hurtful to the obese? Check it out this Friday and see for yourself."

Or they can go on Hardball, or O'Falafel, and after they speak(and clips of the movie are shown) there will be some skinny puke on from the American Anorexia Front who will get into how unhealthy it is to be overweight, how many Americans are overweight, and how this movie will be a good thing because it will inspire people to lose weight. And the movie will be plugged again and again.

Lets look at other such protests:

Right wing groups protested 9-11. Biggest documentary of all time.

Gay and Lesbian groups protested Basic Instinct. Huge hit.

Gay and Lesbian groups protested Eminem-the guy just sold more albums. there is no such thing as bad publicity, and that's the truth. No platform is going to give any group protesting Norbit a serious leg to stand on. They'll show clips of obese people, clips of the people, and invite viewers to "see for themselves". The people that protest these things always end up promoting them. And at some level, they have to know this. Hell, how much free press is Snickers getting today and this week? At the end of the day, it just makes Joe six pack hear the word snickers over and over. IF you're smart enough to recognize the Snickers commercials for what they are-you're probably smart enough to not put that crap in your body in the first place.

So, if it really bothers you, go for it. But keep in mind that ninety percent of all controversy is manufactured, and all too often people play into the hands of those they're protesting. I wouldn't be surprised if the studio had fake protests just to get some free publicity. You might make some knee jerk anti-pc types want to go see the movie.

Oh well. I love Eddie, he's made enough great movies, skits, and albums to stay on the top shelf. I don't think this will be one, alas.

[JackRiddler]

90. Ding!

A campaign would be the biggest favor this flop-in-the-making could possibly receive. You got it. These campaigns basically allow every outside influence to define the struggle for the campaigners.* It's usually a reactionary mode. On the other hand, done right, they can also serve an exemplary function. The PETA campaigns that react to or piggyback on other media phenomena work so well (whatever you think of PETA) because they promote PETA as an active, not reactive group.

(* Then again, if it involved fat women in flower prints beating up Eddie Murphy with unfashionable purses, it might work. It's all about how creatively one goes about it.)

PS - I wish to say it again: this isn't about the movie, which people are free to see, but the marketing, which people cannot avoid. And that it's aimed at children.

[JacksonWest]

103. Good point. I'm sure there are a lot of kids that are getting made fun of at

school right now based on the marketing. No doubt.

[Initech]

78. Don't bother. Norbit has all the makings of a certifiable flop.

Although considering Epic Movie has been #1 the last two weeks, you never know...

[rzr77]

79. all part of a trend for the cultural "cool" to bully the "uncool"

much more than a gender issue, imo, the more i think about it.


American Idol, reality shows etc - this decade is really about upholding the cool, sexy hypermasculine jock/thug and the hyperfeminine barbie doll babe - and denigrating those who can't or won't fit into this mold.

[ScreamingMeemie]

81. rzr77...

Welcome to DU. :toast:

Good to know you.

[Darkhawk32]

84. hmm... I thought a gay won the first Survivor, a fat black man won in American Idol... for starters.

[Roland99]

87. You forgot Clay Aiken and Justin whats-his-name from season 1.

Both quite accepted by the general public.


And what about Rosie O'Donnell, Ellen Degeners, Oprah (she was rather large years ago), Neil Patrick Harris, Kevin Spacey, Freddie Mercury, David Bowie, Iggy Pop, etc. etc. etc.

So sad seeing them all brushed to the sidelines.



Oh wait....

[theboss]

212. What are you talking about?

American Idol has yet to produce a winner who falls into any of those contexts....

Kelly Clarkson was just kind of a normal girl with hips when she won. That Justin dude looked like an alien.

Ruben proved my theory that America loves big fat black men. Clay Aiken may be the dorkiest white guy in the history of dorky white guys.

Fantasio proved my other theory that everyone in America secretly wants to belong to a black church.

Carrie Underwood is a little barbie-ish, I guess. But she also looks like someone who could work at a Wal-Mart. So it all evens out.

Taylor Hicks looks like my dad fifteen years ago.

One of the pleasant surprises of American Idol is how diverse (and truly odd) the winners have been. You have a little bit of everything. Black...white...big...small...country...soul...R&B...gospel.

[rzr77]

239. AI mocked two handicapped kids the other day

Forget about the finalists and the winners for a second, imo they just pick them to make up a whole season of dissing on misfit type people.

AI like many of these "reality" shows are nothing more than mock fests, where each wannabe is trotted in front of the judges to be laughed at and humiliated - and not just for their lack of singing talent - mostly for their appearance - for not having the right "image".

But the point of my post wasnt AI, but the larger cultural trend to bully the socially inept.

[theboss]

351. That's not exactly true

1. Two disabled people tried out for the show. Simon didn't know they were disabled and treated them as he would any other contestant. That is to say, badly.

2. The Special Olympics later released a statement thanking American Idol for treating the brothers that way. Their argument (which I tend to agree with) is that disabled people should be treated like anyone else.

The quote:

"American Idol should be commended for providing Jayne with the same opportunity to succeed as any other contestant. Whether on the stage of American Idol or on the field of competition for Special Olympics, people with intellectual disabilities don't want pity or special treatment. They want to be judged for who they are and appreciated for what they can achieve."

[theboss]

85. I just want Eddie Murphy to be funny again....

Please, Eddie, come back to us.

Put on some red leather pants and make us laugh again.

[knitter4democracy]

93. It's not about fat women--it's about women in general.

The teasers and trailers I've seen are quite misogynistic. You're right--the message is that she's forcing him to be with her, that a strong woman who knows what she wants is bad, that it's wrong for her to like sex, and that the meek and mild girl (who happens to be skinny with perfect skin and hair) is the better girl.

I'm so sick of women-hating screeds, and this seems to be yet another one. Women in general have it hard enough, but it seems to be a specific message to our strong and outspoken African American sisters to tone themselves up and tone their attitudes down, and that's not okay in my book.

[Roland99]

94. There's a difference between a strong-willed woman and a lampoonish character like this.

It's incredibly obvious this "woman"'s character is way overexaggerated. It's called "comic effect" and has been in the movies for decades, on stage for centuries, and will continue to be so for a very long time.

[NYCGirl]

99. Ah, but wouldn't it be a more interesting film if the thin, beautiful woman was

the loud and obnoxious one, and the fat woman was the heroine?

[Roland99]

110. Sure it would but it wouldn't resonate so well with the target demo.

[NYCGirl]

112. True. NT

[knitter4democracy]

100. Comic effect is one thing. Actual message is another.

If the other woman were overweight and strong-willed but loving instead of bullying, that would be different.

Also, how many movies have to come out with men in drag making fun of heavier African American women? It's not like this one's the first.

[Roland99]

111. That goes way back. Milton Berle? Monty Python?

[Greyhound]

106. Aparently Eddie Murphy just doesn't get that he is only funny when

someone else is telling him what to say and do. Every movie that he makes himself is so bad that it is/should be embarrassing.

[MrSlayer]

116. How about not going to see it if you don't like it?

Why does eveything have to be a protest or a boycott or whatever? If you don't like it, don't go see it. Millions and millions of other people are going to ignore what is sure to be another horrendous movie from used to be funny man Eddie Murphy.

[JackRiddler]

118. Obviously! But the ad campaign is the point!

Look, this thread was started as a thought-exercise in the wake of all the threads about the Snickers ad - I'm not interested in organizing an action, if you read all of the above.

But I see here over and over that people miss an essential point, so I'm repeating myself ceaselessly: Of course you can choose not to see the movie - but you have no choice about the commercial (since the TV does not warn you what commercial it's going to show) or the billboards, which are designed actively to stir repulsion and equate fat with subhumanity. AND it's aimed at children. The ad campaign is the point.

[MrSlayer]

121. I don't see it as trying to equate fat with subhumanity.

Are you sure you aren't overthinking this? When I first saw the ads I thought "Who is giving this guy money to make yet another horrible movie?" I'm going to conduct a straw poll tomorrow of some of the people I see regularly who are waiting for the subway with me and see what they think. I doubt anyone is going to say they see it as promoting fat people as subhuman but we'll see. I also don't know that it's aimed at children specifically. It seems that everyone is taking commercials and shit way too seriously instead of taking them for what they are.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

119. This is what I'm waiting for...

Government financed drive-thru liposuction (since I take thyroid and have a pretty damn slow metabolism).

[Vinca]

137. The problem is our insane society. Weight loss products

have commercials with skinny "before" women bragging about how they went from a size 10 to a size 2. The average size for American women is 12.

[Missy Vixen]

221. Right now my favorite is the brunette

hawking NutraSystem who can't wait to tell everyone that she's now a "size 2"!!!!!111!!!!

>skinny "before" women bragging about how they went from a size 10 to a size 2<

She lost 33 pounds to ascend this pinnacle of womanhood, which meant she was most likely a size 5-7 previously. A size 7 is not fat. She also spends most of the commercial burbling away about how "sexy" she feels now, and how she didn't want to wear a swimsuit at her previous weight.

Everytime I see it, I wonder how many teenage girls of normal, healthy weight are watching, and whether or not they've just decided they can be a "size 2"!!!!!111!!!! as well.

Julie

[NorthernSpy]

142. I'm guessing Eddie Murphy is trying to appeal to resentful young black men...

In terms of employment, education, and life prospects, black women are increasingly leaving black men behind. Not all of those left behind are happy with that. So there may be some vengeful appetite for seeing black women held up to public ridicule at work here.

Judging from what I've read, the plot of Norbit concerns a young black man who cannot find love, happiness, and success because a big, pushy black woman won't let him -- poor thing!

But of course, this is purely an ego-saving fantasy. It is true that many young black men are failing in life where young black women are succeeding, but much of that seems to be the result of the different paths that the individuals in each group are tending to choose for themselves. Some may wish to believe that big, pushy black women are cheating them out of the bright future that would otherwise have been theirs, but that seems an unlikely explanation for the growing achievement gap.

[JackRiddler]

145. White man here, missed that aspect...

Very interesting! Thank you, also for your other thoughtful comments on this thread.

[NorthernSpy]

148. mind you, I can't honestly say I know about this firsthand...

... It's really just a guess based on various things I've read. You take the achievement gap between young black men and young black women, and set it next to the string of comedies built around black male comedians adopting a "repulsive black woman" persona, and that's kind of what you come up with.



This is an interesting thread, JackRiddler. Thank you for posting it!

[dysfunctional press]

170. what should REALLY inspire "public expressions of outrage"-

is the level of obesity in this country.

there's NOTHING good about being fat- just ask any doctor.

obesity should be ridculed and not merely "accepted". it's not good for the overall health of this country to have so much obesity among the populace- ESPECIALLY among the children.

[Hoping4Change]

178. Are you seriously recommending ridicule as a way to inspire change?

That is so wrong. Ridiculing overweight people simply compounds the problem. Besides fat is not the issue, fitness is the issue. I'm 60 lbs overweight but my blood pressure is 70/120 and my cholesterol levels are at the bottom of the barrel as I don't eat meat. I have never owned a car and bike 18 miles daily. Literally millions of thin people have blood pressure and cholesterol levels FAR above mine.

[dysfunctional press]

181. fat people shouldn't be made to feel good about their fatness...

in my opinion.

[Hoping4Change]

185. And thin people shouldn't feel good about their thinness when

their blood pressure and cholesterol in out of control.

[yurbud]

206. extreme caloric restriction is the only guaranteed life extending diet

which I don't practice myself

[Hoping4Change]

215. There is no guarantee but warding off heart disease is a

good place to start.

[eridani]

233. Bullshit. Applies to rodents, not people

Why do people never consider that adding two years to a rat's lifespan doubles it, but adding two years to a human's life span is a trivial addition? What makes anybody think that the effect is multiplicative rather than additive?

[yurbud]

285. it's been tested in humans. I'm carrying some extra weight too, but consider it a health issue not

a civil rights one.

[eridani]

287. No it hasn't--where are the 160 year old people that would be analogous

--to the 4 year old rats? Is it posssible that the effects are additive and not multiplicative? If the effects are additive, they are essentially worthless in the case of people.

Extra weight is not a health issue--health issues are your diet composition and activity levels. Even if it were, discrimination against people with health issues is still discrimination.

[yurbud]

296. I know a lot of fat people, including in my family. they don't exercise much

some will abuse themselves with every possible kind of diet, but they simply refuse to exercise on a regular or even occasional basis.

[eridani]

304. Well, I know a lot of gay people that fuck around all the time without protection

Well, there are a few anyway, even in this day and age, aren't there? So the fact that some people know of some gay people who do that makes it OK to harass and abuse all gay people and deny them basic rights because they are gay?

Try being fat and appearing in public wearing workout gear (if you can find any in your size), and get back to me on how easy it all is.

[yurbud]

405. I see a lot of fat people wearing sweats. They just aren't exercising

What basic right are fat people denied?

I don't think fat people should be publicly ridiculed nor discriminated against, but if they applied for a job that required physical exertion, I'd want to observe them doing it before I hired them.

[eridani]

422. Employment and health care are denied on a regular basis.

Also you can have your kids taken away from you.

You should watch anybody who applies for a job involving physical exertion. Most jobs are sedentary (and the ones that aren't are more likely to give you repetitive stress injuries than aerobic conditioning), and few could adapt right away to the kind of jobs most people did 150 years ago.

[Nikia]

257. Not really

Maybe for some gentic types of people who are post menopausal age. It is not healthy for most young people.
Twenty percent of anorexics die.
Even if it would extend your life, it zaps your strenth, weakens your bones, lowers your immunity, and makes you mentally unstable. I know this first hand.

[dysfunctional press]

238. true enough.

mine aren't.

[JackRiddler]

182. Wow...

It sounds like you're having a great time! Seriously.

[Hoping4Change]

190. Well I can't at all say I embrace my weight because I do battle to

reduce and have been successful but it comes back. I'd much prefer being smaller. However I do feel good about my fitness level.

[eridani]

237. Your fitness level is something you have control over

Your metabolic setpoint is not. Thanks for persisting in being active despite ridicule.

[Hoping4Change]

243. I've always been active and and like thin fit people I find that

strenuous activity creates a high so it doesn't take much effort to engage in it. My evil satisfaction comes when I compare notes and see the expression of disbelief when someone who has a normal weight has higher BP. Like I said it is an evil satisfaction.}(

[eridani]

252. I identify. It's not nice to challenge thin people to sit-up contests

--and smirk like hell when you utterly humiliate them. (Got in the habit of doing lots of them wearing an intertrochanteric belt to fix s hip misalignment.)

[eridani]

235. It goes along with our steadily increasing life expectancy

Of course we could all move from a country where most work is sedentary and mostly people have enough to eat to Rwanda--I'm sure that would improve our health a lot.

[yurbud]

186. has anyone seen the movie yet? I just watched trailer and one scene may have foreshadowed end

Norbit is picked on his whole life, and while two white kids are stomping him, the fat chick comes and smacks their heads together.

She is brassy, loud, and in the end, he'll realize she loves him.

[JackRiddler]

204. It's possible...

(I should have the following ready for cut'n'paste)

It may well have a heartwarming, chewy, fat-friendly moral after all. The issue isn't the movie, which anyone can choose whether to see, but the ad campaign, which you get regardless of your choice (if you watch TV, if you see a billboard...)

[LynneSin]

209. I hate all of these movies with folks in the fat suits except one

I find it offensive because usually the person who plays the 'fat' makes the fat person to be offensive either by being a criminal or really bad dresser or some other negative stereotype.

My only exception is "Shallow Hal" with Jack Black and Gywneth Paltrow. Gywneth donned the fat suit for part of the movie and treated the character as a respectable person who dresses nicely, does good things and has plenty of friends. And the ending was excellent to boot.

[Warren DeMontague]

213. When is the last time Eddie Murphy did anything remotely funny?

I'd suspect this film will boycott Itself. Can you say "Pluto Nash"?

[DerBeppo]

214. ALL comedy is based in pain.

It's always going to be funny or try to be funny at the expense of someone or something. Not a single comedic work in the history of humanity has escaped this law.

[jberryhill]

242. Add the Geico "Caveman" Commercials

Geico has a series of commercials based on a caveman taking offense to an ad campaign which claims that Geico insurance "is so easy even a caveman can do it".

Clearly, the point of the Geico commercials is to mock everyone is is offended by a commercial - are we supposed to feel sorry for the caveman, or what?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVVSmnnqfvc

[rebel with a cause]

249. Really, so that is the point.

I thought it was to make cavemen sexy. :sarcasm:

The caveman in the commercial is protrayed as intelligent and sensitive. I get more the feeling that it is meant to show the falacy of stereotyping. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

[jberryhill]

255. I don't know what the point is, but

...someone commented elsewhere about intentionally ambiguous commercials that are basically a rorschach test in which the viewer finds his/her own meaning.

Rather than to provide a distinct message, provide something ambiguous into which a wider audience will project and confirm their own biases.

The weird thing about the Geico ads is that the caveman is feeling oppressed by... a Geico ad. So if you are sympathizing with the caveman for being stereotyped, then you have to blame the "commercial" Geico for doing the stereotyping.... but Geico IS the advertiser.

You see what I mean? If it is to comment on the fallacy of stereotyping, you have to peg Geico as the culprit. But since Geico is delivering the message itself, then do you perceive Geico as saying, "This is the kind of advertising we wouldn't do?"

Whatever it is, it is pretty sophisticated.

The best "backwards" advertising of this type were the old "Joe Isuzu" ads in which a sleazy car salesman named Joe Isuzu would make outrageous claims about Isuzu automobiles, accompanied by subtitles saying things like "He's lying". Now, here was a car company trading on the image of car salesman as liars - in order to sell their car.

[kiahzero]

376. I think it's probably a positive thing

They're actually rather progressive, when you think about it. They take the issue of discrimination, but make it against a group that doesn't exist in reality, so that it's not as emotionally loaded to people. Then they display various aspects of it - the casual discrimination of the therapist, the dismissive comments of the talk show pundits, and so on.

[BlameCanada12]

384. Two words: "White Chicks" - N/T

[NotGivingUp]

254. count me in! i am so totally sick of this shit!!! n/t

[Name removed]

307. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[eridani]

311. You're saying that Molly Ivins isn't funny?

http://womenshistory.about.com/od/quotes/a/molly_ivins.htm

There are two kinds of humor. One kind that makes us chuckle about our foibles and our shared humanity -- like what Garrison Keillor does.

The other kind holds people up to public contempt and ridicule -- that's what I do. Satire is traditionally the weapon of the powerless against the powerful. I only aim at the powerful. When satire is aimed at the powerless, it is not only cruel -- it's vulgar. -- Molly Ivins

[Atman]

316. Why is it okay to call overweight people "powerless?"

I used to weigh 230 pounds. Now I'm 180. I never, ever considered myself "powerless," just fat and out of shape. There is NO EXCUSE -- NONE -- to order a Super Size fast-food meal for lunch, then go have meat and taters for dinner. Eat less, exercise more and read the fucking labels. I know people who eat more calories for breakfast (bacon, eggs, pancakes, syrup, whole milk) than I eat all day...then can't figure out why they can't lose weight.

I'm not buying into this shit. It used to be okay to throw your trash out the car window until we shamed people into stopping their vile habit. Only a very small percentage of people have "glandular problems" or are "big boned." Bullshit. We've developed a Super-Sized culture. We segregate people from healthy food by refusing to place green grocers and whole foods stores in urban areas (and price items affordably). Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. Have you ever seen an ad for Chile's or Applebee's saying "New SMALLER PORTIONS!" Nope. Not the American weigh (er...way).

Have you ever seen parents feeding French fries to toddlers? They should be jailed for that (or at least fined).

Bullshit. Eat less, exercise more, and read the fucking labels. And stop saying the problem is everyone else's for not understanding you.

.

[eridani]

362. What's bullshit is this stupid assumption that eating less and exercising more--

--will make fat people thin. You can decide to eat healthier and exercise more, but you have NO FUCKING CONTROL, NONE WHATSOEVER over what effects those changes will have on your body. The odds are that it will make you weigh less, and it will for sure make you healthier, but fat people who weigh less ARE STILL FAT. And guess what? Thin people who eat crappy food and don't exercise are still unhealthy.

[Atman]

379. You MUST be joking?

It is a "stupid assumption" to say that eating less and exercising more will cause you to lose weight? It's not stupid or an an assumption; it's physiology. It's basic science. Supply less fuel and the body starts using up its stores. Exercise more and muscle will burn calories even while at rest; fast doesn't do that. Are you one of the people who don't believe in science or something?

.

[eridani]

383. Supply less fuel, and bodies, especially fat bodies, adjust to "need" a lot less

--and weight doesn't change much. Your metabolism is not a bank account. Hundreds of feedback mechanisms work to maintain homeostasis. The stupid assumption is that you can control the degree to which your body defends such homeostases. All you can do is change your habits. At any rate, my point was that for most actually fat people (not insecure people who just think they are "fat") weight loss never results in attaining average weight. You just become a healthier fat person who weighs somewhat less.

The people who really don't believe in science are the ones who immediately forget everything they know about scientific reasoning when someone says the magic word "fat". Oddly, muscle is never the subject of such idiotic unreason. A few years ago I was reading one of the exercise magazines at my health club, and came upon an article that compared the effects of a strength training regimen on football players, weight lifters and endurance athletes. Turns out that the football players and weight lifters added quite a bit of muscle mass, but the endurance athletes added very little, though they had noticeable strength gains.

Did the authors conclude that the endurance athletes just refused to try hard enough, lacked will power, or had serious psychological issues with their fathers? Nope, they rationally concluded that college athletes tend to pick sports that their genetics predisposed them to be good at. It would really be great if people could get that rational ahout fat. Do any health improvement program you like--you have no control over its outcome.

[bedazzled]

308. murphy has been doing revolting fart/poop/fat movies for years

it's a shame, too. his standup routine was kind of risque, but funny.
"trading places" is one of my ten favorite movies of all time...

"beverly hills cop" and "48 hours" are classics. my young son
liked "daddy day care," and it had a few funny moments. too many poop
and fart jokes for my taste, but appeals to nine year olds.

i haven't forgiven him for ruining "dr. dolittle" and "the nutty
professor." i think the commercial for his new movie is pathetic, and
hope that this country has not sunk low enough for it to be a hit. protests
would probably increase its gross, so it's best not to go there. hopefully
it'll go right down the toilet, where it belongs.

what's really sad is the ugliness that some people exhibit when talking
about the overweight. it's all about them - they're completely unconcerned
that the fat person is, in fact, a human being. it's scary, really, the
selfishness and lack of compassion...

[RedCappedBandit]

314. Alot of people get pleasure from laughing at other people's misfortune

thats just the way it is, and it isn't unique to obesity.

Not saying its right or that it should be acceptable, but it'd be impossible to do away with.

[Fire Walk With Me]

320. The character's attitude is what is funny.

"Heyy!"

[nam78_two]

321. Personally-I support gay rights but not "fat acceptance" so no

I have come across people from this "fat acceptance" movement and it just seems like a promotion of poor health choices to me :shrug:..

To me, this post seems to be indirect snark at the gay rights movement...

I think Norbit looks crass and vulgar but I don't think it is at all like the Snickers campaign. I will certainly not be watching "norbit", but I don't think there is any similarity between Norbit and the Snickers ad, which I think is what you are getting at.

[Maven]

333. "indirect snark"

More like intellectual dishonesty hour with our host, a petulant, antagonistic child.

[eridani]

364. Fat acceptance is promotion of what should be an obvious notion

--namely that fat people should not be required to make attaining average weight their most important goal in life. Eating well and exercising are good for everybody, regardless of weight. The only effects these practices have on fat people is to make them weigh somewhat less, as well as healthier. Believing otherwise is every bit as stupid as believing that racism is caused by black people spending too much time in the sun.

[JackRiddler]

366. I brook no "snark at the gay rights movement"

and I fully support the goals of equality, same-sex marriage rights, cultural tolerance, and an end to violence and legal discrimination.

I find no equivalence in being gay and being fat, or in the discrimination and abuse faced by either. Apples and oranges are two different kinds of fruit.

As to the specific matter of the two advertising campaigns, you're right, there is no similarity.

One was stupid, ambiguous in content, and would have gone unnoticed except that it became a public issue, which rates as a publicity success for both the ad agency and the campaign to pull the ad.

The other is stupid, ubiquitous, aimed at children, and celebratory of a message that a certain class of sub-humans earn unbridled revulsion, ridicule and devaluation. It will not be an issue for public debate, and even my OP was a rhetorical question.

In a world that valued reason I don't think either would be on TV. I find 90 percent of all ads objectionable and/or false in content or logic, and abhor the tragedy that the propaganda industry ("advertising" and "media") is the collective brain-stem of our society, and has us all swaying as its tentacles.

I've enjoyed and learned from this thread and thank all participants, and I regret if my style is what prompts certain misrepresentations and attacks on my person.

Enjoy your day.

[Djinn]

330. Why would it make you wonder that?

I do wonder why it doesn't inspire any public expressions of outrage.

You live in the richest nation on earth yet 30 million working Americans live in poverty (a very generous percentage) 45 million people have no health coverage, you have one of the biggest gaps between rich and poor, half the elegible people in your land absent themselves from the democratic process, your current president was not elected, your provision of welfare is a joke by international standards (even by the standards of some third world nations) you are involved in a pointless guerilla war and provide billions a year in "aid" to a developed nation.

and you actually have to ask why a movie that's mean to fat people (or a tie in commercial) isn't inspiring outrage? :wow:

[JackRiddler]

356. But I agree with you. Every word.

Nevertheless, this is also the country where none of the issues you mention rates being a top story on the news or at the office cooler, or (on most days) this message board, except the "pointless guerilla war."

I expect you knew that my initial question was rhetorical, and that I'm not going to start an anti-Norbit campaign, so please re-attach the jaw on that smiley.

[jollyreaper2112]

353. nah

The real crime is that Eddie used to be funny. Protest the waste of talent.

[joeunderdog]

365. Let's start a campaign against movies that mock geeky white guys, too.

What group doesn't get mocked by Hollywood comedy? Where do the protests end. Let's all just stay at home and worship our uniqueness and lose our sense of humor. Yup, we'll all be wonderfully politically correct. Miserable, but politically correct.

This shit's gotta stop. It's comedy. They make fun of people of every color, of every eccentricity, from every angle. That's what makes it funny. If you don't like it, stay home as your form of protest (and I don't mean that in a sarcastic way.)

But we don't need to protest every form of satire out there.

[yardwork]

369. That is horrible and I absolutely condemn this film

[treestar]

385. We really have got to quit being hyper sensitive to this stuff

Since I belong to the offended group here, I can say without flames, just ignore it and let it pass.

It is one thing the freepers are correct about - it's impossible to talk to them at all if you let yourself be offended at every little thing. And the vast majority out there agree with them on this, so it gets the left absolutely nowhere and even causes damage to make a big deal of this kind of crap.

[JackRiddler]

427. Thanks

A campaign against the Norbit ads would be distracting, the wrong approach to take, and probably a boost to ticket sales. Boycotts here or there, the only workable solution to all problems with media messages is to BECOME THE MEDIA yourself. I'll take fairness doctrine and access to TV over the power to censor odious material.

This thread was meant to begin a dialogue about both, the treatment of the fat and what determines offensiveness generally, and I think it has been interesting.

[Jamastiene]

423. While I agree that overweight women are ridiculed wrongly,

I think the homophobia has caused far more violence against the GLBT community. I can't remember the last time I heard of an overweight woman being tied to a fence post, brutally beaten, and left in the freezing cold for 5 days just for being overweight. There is a difference when violence is involved, just for the record.

On the other hand, I do agree that overweight women are unjustly ridiculed and demoralized. I won't be watching that movie. That's for sure.

[Fire Walk With Me]

429. From the looks of the first reviews, this one will vanish on its own.

[AnnieBW]

431. Eddie Murphy should NOT get the Oscar

And frankly, if Jennifer Hudson wins the Oscar, she should clock him with it for making fun of large-sized women!