Health and money purrs needed

Christina Websell wrote:

I just wish that you had felt able to reduce weight gradually by diet over a
period of time instead of having stomach-stapling surgery. I tried to
convert 240lbs to stones so I can visualise it, it's about 18 stone. Too
much, certainly, but I doubt a British surgeon would agree to stomach staple
a woman who weighed "only" 18 stone. The expectation would be that weight
loss could be achieved by diet.
Stomach-stapling tends to be used here as a last resort for people who weigh
far much than this, where the weight loss needed to avoid death is not
within the timescale that is possible to achieve by diet reduction alone.
It's considered to be a very dangerous surgery, not to be undertaken
lightly.

We're a bit more cavalier about such things in the US, you might have
noticed. :-/ People routinely get weight-loss surgery at 18 stone and
less.

Racism and ageism, homophobia, religious persecution is probably differently
viewed now because we are the race we are, the age we are, the sexuality we
are, etc etc. There isn't much we can change about any of those things. I
doubt that "fatism" would come into the same category, it would be
considered a lifestyle choice i.e. if you don't like the feedback you get,
don't eat so much.

You know, I hear this argument a lot. But I have to wonder why people feel
such a need to discriminate and be cruel to each other, that one has to
qualify for "I can't change it" status before one can have a legitimate
reason to be protected from harassment? Why is it that, even if a person
*can* choose to have a certain trait, does this make it OK to shun them, be
cruel to them, refuse to hire them, and otherwise treat them like second-
class citizens? Unless someone's chosen trait or behavior is harmful to
others, why would anyone condone negative treatment in response to it?

For example, because of my weight, I am probably discriminated against
in employment. Why? Because some people don't like the way I look. But
that is hardly a legitimate reason to refuse to hire me. Unless the job
requires something like, say, having to crawl into tiny spaces, where
it would make sense for an employer to tell me that I probably *can't do
the job*, or a thinner person can do it better, what bearing does my size
have on my ability to do the work? I'm a technical writer - I write
computer manuals. My being fat doesn't affect my output at all. (And by
the way, I almost never take sick time, so let's not get into the "fat
people will be out sick more often" argument - by that logic, one should
not hire rock climbers or sky divers, either.)

I'm not saying I agree with this, mind, it's just how I think it's probably
viewed. There would be no basis in UK law for "fatism" to be a crime.

There are certain, isolated places in the US where discrimination based on
body size is illegal. I'm proud to say that San Francisco is one of them -
and I helped it pass. The state of Michigan is another, and now a similar
law is under consideration in Massachusetts. (My home state - I'm so proud
of it! Gay people can get legally married, there's a single-payer health
plan in the works, and now this. If only they would outlaw winter, I'd
move right back. )

BTW, the San Francisco law makes size discrimination illegial in both
the weight *and* height dimensions. It wasn't only fat people who worked
to pass this ordinance - there were a number of little people involved
as well.

I just don't think that changing myself so that I can fit someone else's
idea of acceptability is the answer to bigotry, even if I can change
myself. If someone wants to work on weight loss for their own reasons,
such as their health, that's their business. But why should someone have
to change their body size in order to be acceptable to others? I think
bigotry is the bigot's problem - they're the ones who should change.

Joyce

wrote in message
...
Christina Websell wrote:

I just wish that you had felt able to reduce weight gradually by diet
over a
period of time instead of having stomach-stapling surgery. I tried to
convert 240lbs to stones so I can visualise it, it's about 18 stone.
Too
much, certainly, but I doubt a British surgeon would agree to stomach
staple
a woman who weighed "only" 18 stone. The expectation would be that
weight
loss could be achieved by diet.
Stomach-stapling tends to be used here as a last resort for people who
weigh
far much than this, where the weight loss needed to avoid death is not
within the timescale that is possible to achieve by diet reduction
alone.
It's considered to be a very dangerous surgery, not to be undertaken
lightly.

We're a bit more cavalier about such things in the US, you might have
noticed. :-/ People routinely get weight-loss surgery at 18 stone and
less.

Racism and ageism, homophobia, religious persecution is probably
differently
viewed now because we are the race we are, the age we are, the sexuality
we
are, etc etc. There isn't much we can change about any of those things.
I
doubt that "fatism" would come into the same category, it would be
considered a lifestyle choice i.e. if you don't like the feedback you
get,
don't eat so much.

You know, I hear this argument a lot. But I have to wonder why people feel
such a need to discriminate and be cruel to each other, that one has to
qualify for "I can't change it" status before one can have a legitimate
reason to be protected from harassment? Why is it that, even if a person
*can* choose to have a certain trait, does this make it OK to shun them,
be
cruel to them, refuse to hire them, and otherwise treat them like second-
class citizens? Unless someone's chosen trait or behavior is harmful to
others, why would anyone condone negative treatment in response to it?

For example, because of my weight, I am probably discriminated against
in employment. Why? Because some people don't like the way I look. But
that is hardly a legitimate reason to refuse to hire me. Unless the job
requires something like, say, having to crawl into tiny spaces, where
it would make sense for an employer to tell me that I probably *can't do
the job*, or a thinner person can do it better, what bearing does my size
have on my ability to do the work? I'm a technical writer - I write
computer manuals. My being fat doesn't affect my output at all. (And by
the way, I almost never take sick time, so let's not get into the "fat
people will be out sick more often" argument - by that logic, one should
not hire rock climbers or sky divers, either.)

I'm not saying I agree with this, mind, it's just how I think it's
probably
viewed. There would be no basis in UK law for "fatism" to be a crime.

There are certain, isolated places in the US where discrimination based on
body size is illegal. I'm proud to say that San Francisco is one of them -
and I helped it pass. The state of Michigan is another, and now a similar
law is under consideration in Massachusetts. (My home state - I'm so proud
of it! Gay people can get legally married, there's a single-payer health
plan in the works, and now this. If only they would outlaw winter, I'd
move right back. )

BTW, the San Francisco law makes size discrimination illegial in both
the weight *and* height dimensions. It wasn't only fat people who worked
to pass this ordinance - there were a number of little people involved
as well.

I just don't think that changing myself so that I can fit someone else's
idea of acceptability is the answer to bigotry, even if I can change
myself. If someone wants to work on weight loss for their own reasons,
such as their health, that's their business. But why should someone have
to change their body size in order to be acceptable to others? I think
bigotry is the bigot's problem - they're the ones who should change.

Joyce

Thank you for this post Joyce!

I get tired of trying to justify my choices in life to others and spend
*way* too much time doing so. As you said, why should my choices be judged
or criticized by others when those choices have absolutely no effect on
them!!? Any why do some people see themselves as the sole arbiters of what
others should and shouldn't do when it affects only themselves and nobody
else??!

Hugs,

CatNipped

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:13:05 -0500, "CatNipped"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
Christina Websell wrote:

I just wish that you had felt able to reduce weight gradually by diet
over a
period of time instead of having stomach-stapling surgery. I tried to
convert 240lbs to stones so I can visualise it, it's about 18 stone.
Too
much, certainly, but I doubt a British surgeon would agree to stomach
staple
a woman who weighed "only" 18 stone. The expectation would be that
weight
loss could be achieved by diet.
Stomach-stapling tends to be used here as a last resort for people who
weigh
far much than this, where the weight loss needed to avoid death is not
within the timescale that is possible to achieve by diet reduction
alone.
It's considered to be a very dangerous surgery, not to be undertaken
lightly.

We're a bit more cavalier about such things in the US, you might have
noticed. :-/ People routinely get weight-loss surgery at 18 stone and
less.

Racism and ageism, homophobia, religious persecution is probably
differently
viewed now because we are the race we are, the age we are, the sexuality
we
are, etc etc. There isn't much we can change about any of those things.
I
doubt that "fatism" would come into the same category, it would be
considered a lifestyle choice i.e. if you don't like the feedback you
get,
don't eat so much.

You know, I hear this argument a lot. But I have to wonder why people feel
such a need to discriminate and be cruel to each other, that one has to
qualify for "I can't change it" status before one can have a legitimate
reason to be protected from harassment? Why is it that, even if a person
*can* choose to have a certain trait, does this make it OK to shun them,
be
cruel to them, refuse to hire them, and otherwise treat them like second-
class citizens? Unless someone's chosen trait or behavior is harmful to
others, why would anyone condone negative treatment in response to it?

For example, because of my weight, I am probably discriminated against
in employment. Why? Because some people don't like the way I look. But
that is hardly a legitimate reason to refuse to hire me. Unless the job
requires something like, say, having to crawl into tiny spaces, where
it would make sense for an employer to tell me that I probably *can't do
the job*, or a thinner person can do it better, what bearing does my size
have on my ability to do the work? I'm a technical writer - I write
computer manuals. My being fat doesn't affect my output at all. (And by
the way, I almost never take sick time, so let's not get into the "fat
people will be out sick more often" argument - by that logic, one should
not hire rock climbers or sky divers, either.)

I'm not saying I agree with this, mind, it's just how I think it's
probably
viewed. There would be no basis in UK law for "fatism" to be a crime.

There are certain, isolated places in the US where discrimination based on
body size is illegal. I'm proud to say that San Francisco is one of them -
and I helped it pass. The state of Michigan is another, and now a similar
law is under consideration in Massachusetts. (My home state - I'm so proud
of it! Gay people can get legally married, there's a single-payer health
plan in the works, and now this. If only they would outlaw winter, I'd
move right back. )

BTW, the San Francisco law makes size discrimination illegial in both
the weight *and* height dimensions. It wasn't only fat people who worked
to pass this ordinance - there were a number of little people involved
as well.

I just don't think that changing myself so that I can fit someone else's
idea of acceptability is the answer to bigotry, even if I can change
myself. If someone wants to work on weight loss for their own reasons,
such as their health, that's their business. But why should someone have
to change their body size in order to be acceptable to others? I think
bigotry is the bigot's problem - they're the ones who should change.

Joyce

Thank you for this post Joyce!

I get tired of trying to justify my choices in life to others and spend
*way* too much time doing so. As you said, why should my choices be judged
or criticized by others when those choices have absolutely no effect on
them!!? Any why do some people see themselves as the sole arbiters of what
others should and shouldn't do when it affects only themselves and nobody
else??!

Hugs,

CatNipped


My daughter is very overweight, she is 28 years old, 5'6" and 225
lbs. She has been trying to find a job for the last 2 years, and has
not been able to get one. She has interviewed at several places, but
the jobs do not materialize. She was recently diagnosed with PCOS -
polycystic ovary syndrome, which can cause weight gain. The treatment
for it will have to wait until she gets a job with health benefits.

Mishi wrote:

My daughter is very overweight, she is 28 years old, 5'6" and 225
lbs. She has been trying to find a job for the last 2 years, and has
not been able to get one. She has interviewed at several places, but
the jobs do not materialize.

Just curious, what kind of work is she looking for?

She was recently diagnosed with PCOS -
polycystic ovary syndrome, which can cause weight gain. The treatment
for it will have to wait until she gets a job with health benefits.

That's a catch-22, isn't it?

Joyce

Mishi wrote:

My daughter is very overweight, she is 28 years old, 5'6" and 225
lbs. She has been trying to find a job for the last 2 years, and has
not been able to get one. She has interviewed at several places, but
the jobs do not materialize. She was recently diagnosed with PCOS -
polycystic ovary syndrome, which can cause weight gain. The treatment
for it will have to wait until she gets a job with health benefits.

Lots of purrs and best wishes for your daughter,
Polonca and Soncek

Judith Latham wrote:
snip
Judith
Getting back into the swing of the group.

Welcome back!
Best wishes,
Polonca and Soncek