(no subject)

[wavyarms]

I write letters! Also, a Crusty Curmudgie McCrankypants credo about FAT.

I was just going to post this letter I wrote to Whole Foods, but it occurs to me that this is an opportune time to explicate certain of my beliefs, and also give fair warning. SO. Here are some things I believe about fat and health. Letter follows.

1.) Fat is not a moral issue. You are not a good person if you are healthy. You are not a bad person if you are sick. You are also not a morally superior person if you engage in actions designed to improve your own health, and you are not a morally inferior person if you never floss and then you get heart disease. We all have only so many resources, and you get to choose how to spend them. Repeat: not a moral issue. [EDITED TO ADD: I meant to say Health is not a moral issue, which is broader, but of course I also believe that fat is not a moral issue.]

2.) You cannot tell how healthy someone is by looking at them. A slender person could be disabled in some way; a fat person could be an Olympian.

3.) Fat people are not automatically unhealthy.

4.) Dieting does not work. [EDITED TO ADD: I also do not believe that calories in equals calories out.] I believe that our natural weights vary as much (if not more) than our natural heights, and we don't have a lot of control over that. (I do believe in HAES and intuitive eating.)

5.) Dieting and calorie restriction are, on top of not working, unhealthy behaviors. (However, since healthy is not a moral issue, it is None Of My Business if you choose to engage in these behaviors. I assume other people are more educated about what is best for themselves than I am, and although if you are a close friend I might tell you I think it's not healthy behavior, it is also my job to Back Off. I am not always great at this (see: tanning salons) but I believe it's what I ought to be doing.) I believe dieting and calorie restriction are unhealthy behaviors not only because of the studies about rapid weight loss and gain being a bad idea in the long run, but because having a relationship with your food that is primarily about how many calories it has, and how you should have less of it than you want is incredibly mentally damaging.

6.) Shame does not work. Even if #1-5 were not true, making people who are overweight feel bad about themselves is a rotten way to try to effect change.

7.) Exercise is great! I think it's a great thing, not only because your body feels better and it may increase longevity, but because it's so good for mental health. However, since health is not a moral issue, neither is exercise. Would you like to go on a morally-neutral hike with me?

What does this mean for you and your interactions with Crusty Curmudgie McCrankypants?

I don't want to hear about your diet. You need to find other support for that. I will not compliment you on losing weight, or commiserate with you about gaining weight. (I might say something like, "Well, do you feel better? OK, I'm glad to hear that.") Although it is very difficult in our society to clean up my language, I'm not really interested in talking about how evil certain foods are. And I am really, really, REALLY not interested in hearing people complain about how terrible it is that they weigh so much. (There is an added frustration when said people clearly weigh less than I do. Um, hello? I am right here, in all my solid glory.)

OK. That said, here is my letter to Whole Foods.

I have read that you discriminate against your employees based on weight. I understand you have a voluntary employee program that gives greater discounts to employees who weigh less (i.e. have lower BMI's.) I find this a horrendous policy, and will be boycotting your store until it is changed.

I am an advocate of Fat Acceptance, and believe that a person's weight is not a good indicator of their overall health. I am also strongly against discrimination against people who are fat. But even if I weren't, how does this policy make sense? If you think that people who are overweight are the ones who most need to be healthy, why would you give them the smallest discount to buy healthy foods? This policy is outrageous on many different levels. I look forward to a press release soon indicating that you have changed your policy, and will give an equal discount to all employees. (I have seen intelligent suggestions that people with a gym membership get a higher discount; or that the discount only apply to produce; but do not participate in the fat prejudice that has been sweeping this nation for far too long.)

Sincerely, wavyarms

Note that this letter was not perfect, b/c the "intelligent suggestions" I mention still reward people for certain behaviors that should be only their own business, and suggest that some food is GOOD and other food is BAD, but I find it hard to get this stuff right when swimming against the cultural stream.

[EDIT: This does not mean you cannot talk to me about weight or your body or ANYTHING. If you feel unhappy in your body because you feel it is too fat, or you are sick and are losing weight, or you feel unhappy with your body image for any other reason, that can be a huge thing, and I as your friend am happy to talk to you about it. But I want you to know the beliefs that will inform that conversation for me. I am going to do a lot more talking about how the patriarchy's narrow definitions of beauty and expectations of femininity are fucking us up than about how running is sooo much better than biking for weight-loss.]

Comments are open, but keep in mind that I have just told you what I believe, and I am a UU, so I expect respect.

Comments

[sanj.livejournal.com]

*love*

Thanks. I needed to see something like this today.

[wavyarms.livejournal.com]

You're welcome! *loves back*

Hey, can I come visit you this summer? And maybe we can take a morally-neutral stroll about town and do some shopping? I was just thinking I need to get some new undergarments, and I can't think of anyone I'd rather shop with!

[sanj.livejournal.com]

I am at your disposal and would love to see you!

[wavyarms.livejournal.com]

OK, when this crazy semester is over, let's make some planz. :)

[mindways]

Bravo for letter-writing!

Random thoughts:

I think your first intelligent suggestion really does make sense. I can't give citations, but I'm almost positive that healthy employees are (statistically) more productive and happier - and both productivity and morale are legitimate corporate concerns, completely aside from any issues of morality.

Health is not a moral issue(*), but it can be a concern of friends - obviously so in extreme cases (someone is destroying themselves with drugs or an eating disorder, or is heading towards suicide), and to correspondingly lesser degree for less-extreme cases. I think you agree with this to some extent (from your tanning-salons commentary)? Personally, I find that day-to-day, this only really comes up in giving positive reinforcement for healthy behaviors someone's already engaging in, or in making opportunities for friends to join me in something healthy and fun. But still, matters which are none of a generic stranger's business may well be the business of someone who knows me / cares about me / would be devastated if I died at age 27 from my (fictional) habit of swallowing live flaming pit bulls.

One of my few overarching concerns with the notion of a single-payer healthcare system (which I otherwise strongly support) is that health then becomes an issue, not of public morality, but of the public budget. (It already is, to some extent, but it becomes much more explicit / directly-linked.) I fear the day that individual choices / liberties come under scrutiny as a public-option expense to be eliminated. (Though I realize this already happens to some extent: eg, seatbelt laws.)

(*) = Though I feel like there are some philosophies under which it could be - "showing respect for the temple of one's body" type of stuff, for instance.

[wavyarms.livejournal.com]

Well, in the tanning salon instance, my friend who goes (or used to go? can't remember) to those has all the information I do. And she makes the decision that despite the risks, it's a highly enjoyable experience for her, so she wants to do it. So really, I should just shut up instead of making disapproving noises every time she mentions it. (I mean, one disapproving noise the first time, fine, but then I need to work on zipping it.)

Your point about the government is interesting, b/c I am actually the type of person who is OK with seatbelt laws. In lots of given instances, I often lean towards accepting limitations on my own choices if statistically speaking, lives are going to be saved. This doesn't really jive with the above entry, but I guess I am just a little bundle of contradictions.

However, under the single-payer system, although I think your concern about the argument being brought up is valid, I don't think that argument itself is logical. People who live the longest will be the biggest drain on our healthcare system, so we should be glaring at the healthiest people! This link (http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/2010/02/18/meme-roth-a-burden-on-us-all/) also addresses that argument.

[mindways]

If I had a friend doing the tanning thing, I'd probably not make disapproving noises once informedness was established - but would mention that the habit made me sad on a purely selfish level, because the it meant I was likely to enjoy her company in this life for less time. (This is what I do for, eg, the thankfully-few friends of mine who smoke.)

Speeding laws and no-talking-on-cellphone laws and inspection laws I'm all fine with, because if some risk-taker loses control on the road, they're not the only one who'll be hurt. Seatbelt laws... sit on an uncomfortable border for me. Wearing a seatbelt doesn't decrease anyone else's injury risk. But it does decrease the risk that someone else will have to live with having killed you. Is that enough of a basis to mandate government interference?

In lots of given instances, I often lean towards accepting limitations on my own choices if statistically speaking, lives are going to be saved.

Yeah. When I look at things in microscale, I completely understand, but in the large, I find that sort of leaning incredibly dangerous. Where does one stop with "for your own good" laws?

However, under the single-payer system, although I think your concern about the argument being brought up is valid, I don't think that argument itself is logical.

My fear is that it would be invoked for the most "obviously risky" behaviors first, then slowly expand in scope. But the long-life-costs-more argument is a good point. And thanks for the link!

[ltlbird.livejournal.com]

Re: seatbelt laws, other people may not be directly harmed by a person's failure to wear a seatbelt, but injuries sustained by that failure have a huge impact. They cause police (and therefore public funds) to be needed at the scene of the accident, they add to the skyrocketing health care costs in our nation (even if the person has insurance, emergency care, especially trauma care, is pricey), and what about the emotional toll on the friends and family of the person who doesn't wear a seatbelt?

One could make similar arguments (and people have) about being overweight or being a smoker, but those are much slower to manifest health risks. And smokers, at least, are already penalized, at least here in MA, by the huge taxes on tobacco. Hmm, frankly, I am not sure how different the tobacco tax is from a reduced discount on groceries. In both cases, an entity (whether Whole Foods or the government) that bears a financial burden from increased health care costs from one demographic is passing that cost on to the demographio. Not all smokers get lung cancer or other health problems, but they all have to pay the taxes. Not all overweight people are unhealthy, but they are all affected by the Whole Foods policy.

wavyarms, I do like the suggestion changing the financial incentive to have to do with rewarding healthy habits (gym membership or produce purchases) rather than penalizing everyone who is overweight. It would also be nice if health care premiums were tied to more consistent indicators of health (like cholesterol or high blood pressure) rather than weight.

As to intuitive eating, I haven't read much about it, but my gut (ha!) doesn't buy it. I have a crazy sweet tooth, and while I don't deny it, if I let myself have all the sweets my body told me it wanted, I wouldn't be as healthy as I am now. I also recently heard, on NPR, I believe that high calorie foods are as addictive as heroin. I think there's a balance to be had between dieting and the flip side in our culture of supersized, on the go, highly caloric, highly processed food.

[mindways]

... They cause police (and therefore public funds) to be needed at the scene of the accident, they add to the skyrocketing health care costs in our nation (even if the person has insurance, emergency care, especially trauma care, is pricey), and what about the emotional toll on the friends and family of the person who doesn't wear a seatbelt?

I agree that these are all real costs to society.(*) I simply wonder whether the costs provide sufficient justification for government regulation of (a) an individual's risky behavior which (b) doesn't have the potential to directly harm anyone else.

For me, that answer tips from 'yeah, OK?' to '...er, no?' somewhere right around seatbelt laws. As I mentioned in some other comment above, I find the notion of government prohibition of individuals' risky behavior based on healthcare costs to be a terrible idea. (I don't see that basing it on polce-presence costs is any better.)

On the non-financial side, I find the emotional toll on others more compelling... but even more broad in the sorts of things it would lend support for banning. (eg: That same argument could even more easily be applied against the right to die, which I'm a firm supporter of.)

Or to look at it from another angle: if the seatbelt law were being made in a vacuum, I'd likely be supportive of it. It's us, as a society, deciding that we, collectively, should always take an extremely simple, non-intrusive action that will (on average) improve our lifespan and lower our injury rate. But laws set precedents, and are founded on principles, and some of the precedents and principles of the seatbelt law are not ones I can support with an easy conscience.

(*) = Modulo the whole "people dying quicker may actually decrease overall medical costs" line of argument referenced by wavyarms above, which I'm still digesting.

[wavyarms.livejournal.com]

Tobacco and being overweight are drastically different, because one is a choice, and the other is not. (I know there are many people who believe that fat people all CHOOSE to be fat, but I think this is a load of baloney.)

It's SO interesting that you say that about intuitive eating, b/c something you said put me on the road to it! You were talking about how it's important to respect kids when they say they are hungry or full, and not tell kids to always clean their plates, which was kind of a major eye-opening statement for me. Intuitive eating for me means primarily trying to learn when I'm hungry or full, and secondarily analyzing why I want to eat what I want to eat. If I want chips, for example, what I actually probably want is salt, and I can get that in other ways (edamame, for example.) You do have a good point about the high-calorie-foods are addictive thing. But for me, intuitive eating still has a lot of value to offer.

[meranthi.livejournal.com]

I agree that choosing to be fat is complete nonsense. However, smoking is often *not* a choice after a certain point. Addiction is a terrible disease and many (if not most) smokers know it's bad and just can't stop. I find I have the same problem with food. The food I like is not good for me, and I know that. It's addictive, though, and I often can't override that desire.

[wavyarms.livejournal.com]

Fair enough!

[scottahill.livejournal.com]

I would say that what is a moral issue is itself up to the individual. Swearing is a moral issue for some people, and completely irrelevant to others. Homosexuality is a more famous example. And so health certainly could be a moral issue for some; but I do agree that it shouldn't be. As we've seen in the gay rights case, however, it can be difficult to convince people to adjust their sense of morality through a public campaign, though one-on-one contact can have better results.

[osirusbrisbane.livejournal.com]

This, from post to links, was good to read. Thanks for sharing.

[wavyarms.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the positive feedback! I often get a pre-emptive chip on my shoulder when I write these sorts of entries, so it's nice to get comments like this. :)

[ggod715a.livejournal.com]

Instead of "I am an advocate of Fat Acceptance", I would say something like "I don't believe that people should be objects of disrespect, scorn or discrimination due to their weight". Mostly because it's pretty likely that the person has never heard of the idea of Fat Acceptance and so they'll just blow off that sentence rather than thinking about what it means.

Also don't get your hope up regarding Whole Foods. Remember their CEO wrote an oped in the WSJ saying "ObamaCare is a stupid idea, people should just eat healthier and buy more stuff at Whole Foods." They also fought against the Employee Free Choice Act.

[ltlbird.livejournal.com]

people should just eat healthier and buy more stuff at Whole Foods

The assumption that everything at Whole Foods is healthy cracks me up. All natural, organic potato chips (while fine in moderation, or when balanced by activity) will still make you gain weight if you eat a lot of them.

[ggod715a.livejournal.com]

not to mention... beer.

[wavyarms.livejournal.com]

Oh, I know the CEO is crazy. But teaspoons, teaspoons!

I think I combine our approaches, and say, "I am an advocate of Fat Acceptance, which means that I don't believe that people should be objects of disrespect, scorn or discrimination due to their weight." Voila!

[ggod715a.livejournal.com]

that works

[phineasjones.livejournal.com]

right on.

[wavyarms.livejournal.com]

OMG, how cute is your icon? I should go back to watching that show on Hulu.

[dooneling.livejournal.com]

Yup, the more I watch people, the closer I come to concluding that the weight/health/eating habits theories I've heard just aren't complex enough. And that it's absurd to make character assumptions based on weight-height ratios. (Though sometimes i catch myself doing it anyway. oops.)

And can I just add a related complaint?

Too many people equate low calorie with healthy. As in, "a healthy choice, only x calories!" As though calories were in themselves unhealthy. How silly. I always feel sorry for the big men with jobs doing physical labor outdoors, (who use a lot of calories, esp in the winter) when they also have diet obsessed wives constantly worrying about their man's unhealthy high-calorie food choices. Remind me not to marry a diet obsessed woman.

[wavyarms.livejournal.com]

Hey, dooneling! Don't marry a diet-obsessed woman OR a diet-obsessed man!

I agree the low-calorie thing drives me nuts (usually by the way advertisements talk about the subject.) I usually look at my meal and worry about whether it has ENOUGH calories, b/c if it doesn't, I'll be hungry, and I might not be able to eat for the next 3-5 hours (depending on my schedule.) I think this is a holdover from the bike trip, when getting enough calories was always on my mind, and an occasional source of stress. Now, though, it's not about how hard I'm working physically, it's about how narrow my schedule is and when I have time to eat.

[scottahill.livejournal.com]

I agree with practically everything here; I thought it might make a refreshing change for me to say so. :)

One question: fat is not immoral or unhealthy, but is it undesirable, to you personally? Given a magic wand, and all that?

[wavyarms.livejournal.com]

Yes, given a magic wand I would like to be slimmer. But I think that if I were raised in a different culture, one that considered my body type to be ideal I wouldn't feel that way. So I'd rather try to fix my self-perception than try to starve myself!

[pantshead.livejournal.com]

I find I generally agree with the idea that one's size and eating habits are their own business and not anyone else's.

I'd be interested to know, though, (and if you feel like devoting more thought and typing to the question) where your thoughts are about the following example: My question really is "where does the morality of the individual end and the morality of the society begin?"

Around here (as in many other cities) an effort is being made to bring farmer's markets and other healthier food options into poorer areas that are lacking in quality grocery stores. I'm not sure exactly who funds these efforts--community groups? Churches/religious organizations? The Government? But it's being done in recognition of the fact that it's hard for people who don't have cars or a lot of money to make healthy choices about what they eat if it isn't available to them at, say, the corner convenience store.

I personally think this is a Good Thing--people deserve more choices about what to eat. However, it could be interpreted as a group of outsiders (mostly) telling a particular group of people that what they're doing (feeding them selves from what they have available) is Wrong, and needs to be Corrected.

So, in this case, I'd say that any one of those poorer individuals who is fat or skinny or whatever has the right to be that way IF that's what THEY WANT. But at the same time, I think a civilized society has a duty to try to make resources available to all of its members. But where is the line between the two?

Also, to take it even farther: I believe there are people who truly don't know that their eating habits contribute to their health problems (whether they are related to weight--joint trouble, poor circulation, etc..; diabetes, heart, cholesterol, etc...) Some of these people may be poor or undereducated (or, in fact, have difficulty learning). Some may not--maybe they're just oblivious. Children certainly don't know this without being taught. So where does the moral obligation of society to educate them end and their right as individuals to do as they want begin?

I'm really not trying to pick holes in anything you've said--I'm honestly curious about your thoughts, because I don't necessarily have a coherent answer for the questions.

[wavyarms.livejournal.com]

This is a GREAT comment, and I will TOTALLY respond to it...

...in a couple of days b/c I'm kinda overcommitted at the moment. :) But you raise great discussion points.

[wavyarms.livejournal.com]

I was just re-reading my LJ from the year, and saw that I never responded to this comment. Still interested eight months later? :)

I think my short answer is that society, through the public school system, seems to have made the commitment to educating its citizens, and so I think health should be part of that. Learning about nutrition is indeed a life skill!

As for the food desert problem, I agree it needs to be corrected and am glad to hear there are people trying to fix it, but I would also be very wary about "Outsiders telling people they are Doing It Wrong" phenomenon. But yes, food deserts are a big problem, and I think it's better to try and address that problem and risk making a mistake than leaving it the way it is.

I guess my main feeling about the morality of the individual vs. the morality of the society when it comes to fat and food is that shame needs to be taken out of it. I'm fine with society shaming people about things like homophobia, but not when it comes to really anything to do with health. (Or with how to spend your resources such as time and money, which is really tied to nutrition.) Providing options - great, shaming people for their individual choices - not so great.

[pantshead.livejournal.com]

I *am* still interested eight months later :)

And I think your second answer (re: shame) is very fair. I would amend the last sentence to say: "Providing options, and providing appropriate education about those options - great..."

We don't have a kid or any super-close connections to any kids in public school (though I could ask friends of ours...) but I wonder how much education kids really get about their health in school. And I wonder how much they see that education supported by the choices the people in their homes make. Not to make broad generalizations, but I feel like I see a lot of cases in our specific community where this is not the case. I suppose (if my nursing school plans take off) that I'll have an entirely different perspective on this within a couple of years!

[wavyarms.livejournal.com]

Yes, it's true that I think kids get little education about their health in school (and the education that's there, at least when I was in school, was presented in a supremely boring manner that seemed very irrelevant to me.)

I tend to be nervous about nutrition education because it seems like so much of the research is in flux (eggs are good! bad! good! bad!) and my belief is that a lot of nutritionists engage in fat-shaming. But if it was done well, it would be a lot more useful than a lot of things kids learn in school! The kids at my elementary school do a lot of cooking, actually, and go to "farm school" once a year, and try to grow things to eat in their classrooms, so come to think of it, they are doing pretty well.