I came across an article on Shine from Yahoo titled "Overweight and Proud : Standing up For Myself." I'll admit I wasn't looking for anything having to do with weight loss or plus sizes, a link from a Blake Lively photo shoot took me to the site and I just happened to find the other article.
I'm not going to recap the whole article for you, but the gist of it is that this writer, an overweight woman, was ridiculed at the grocery store for being overweight. Specifically, someone yelled "Lose some weight," as they passed by in the parking lot. The writer decided to confront the shouter and the article basically concludes with the idea that she was proud for standing up for herself.
So I got to thinking about how I felt regarding this situation. Luckily, the only time I was ever ridiculed for my weight was during one of those weekend long super important football games in college, by a very intoxicated sorority girl who then proceded to fall in the middle of the bar and get kicked out. So I can't say that I have ever felt the rage that this writer must have felt towards the stranger who embarrassed her. Skimming the comments in this article makes me see that we still have a long way to go with fat discrimination and that standing up for yourself, no matter what you look like, is something you can and should be proud of.
Many of the commenters in the above article are saying things like, "Yeah, that woman was rude, but you shouldn't be proud to be overweight, it's unhealthy." Well, what do they know? How do they know that this extra weight is actually unhealthy on her frame? How do they know she's not already working out, already eating healthy? And so what if she's not doing any of that? What if she is choosing to be the size she is?
Why do people assume that because you are overweight you are ashamed of it? I know exactly what contributes to my extra weight. It's my love for ice cream. And everytime I go to the doctor I ask if I need to lose weight and they tell me not if I'm exercising already, which I am. So, why should I convince myself that I'm not ok when everything points to that I am fine?
If you saw someone with pink hair covered in tattoos, would you feel compelled to yell something at them? If you saw someone dressed in religious clothing you were unfamiliar with, would you feel compelled to ridicule them? Hopefully most of you are thinking that you wouldn't, but the woman who yelled at the writer of this article probably does all of that. Some people just can't tolerate anything different from what they consider to me the norm. The fact of the matter is that this intolerance doesn't only have to do with your weight. It goes much deeper and expands much broader. Intolerance is ugly. It makes you much uglier than 15 extra pounds. If I have to choose between being intolerant and skinny and the way I am now, I'll take an extra scoop of ice cream tonight.
Showing posts with label overweight discrimination. Show all posts
Showing posts with label overweight discrimination. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Monday, April 26, 2010
Lane Bryant Ads Stir Up Controversy and Publicity
I was all ready to scoop the heck out of this story last week when the controversy first reared it's ugly head. I was lining up with my pitchforks right along side the rest of the Lane Bryant and plus sized women supporters. But then I decided I wanted to wait. I wanted to give the networks a chance to make a statement, because I do have an interest in what they could have possibly been thinking. So I waited, and it turns out they have nothing particularly helpful to say. So here is the official Falling Off the Blog entry on the Lane Bryant lingerie ad:
For those who haven't already heard, Lane Bryant has revamped it's Cacique lingerie line and are wanting to run ads announcing it's new products. So, naturally they did their research and determined they would get their message to many of their customers if they air an ad during Monday night's Dancing with the stars on ABC. According to Lane Bryant, ABC did not want to air the ad, saying it was not appropriate for prime time. They eventually gave in and said it could air, but only in the last 10 minutes of the show. The reason they felt the ad was inappropriate was because the model "had too much cleavage," and apparently that could be a problem for viewers. Lane Bryant is also claiming a similar reaction to advertisers over at FOX when they tried to purchase a spot during American Idol.
Now Lane Bryant is crying foul because they feel like this is discrimination. The lingerie featured in the ad is pretty generously cut bras, panties, and chemises. They are also saying that both ABC and FOX have been running Victoria's Secret ads during the same slots they were trying to purchase. Victoria's Secret ads often show as much or more cleavage and skin. Lane Bryant points out that a fuller figured woman often has large breasts and that there is nothing offensive about the models body or how it is dressed. They claim the networks are discriminating because the model is plus sized.
Ok, so now you have the facts, as best I understand them. Here's where I go "Huh?" with all of this back and forth from the networks and Lane Bryant. I understand that the networks have the right to decide what could be offensive to their viewers. Yes, the model has more cleavage than an average television actress or model would have. But is it an offensive amount of cleavage? Heck no. Is the model doing anything, suggesting anything, or posing inappropriately? No. And remember that they were wanting to show this during Dancing with the Stars. Now, I'm no prude but sometimes the costumes, or lack there of, make even me uncomfortable. And that certainly has nothing to do with the dancers size, since all of the dancing professionals are very thin.
Here is what I think this means for our society and how it must change. Being plus sized I automatically jump to the side of Lane Bryant and the full figure woman. I would appreciate seeing an ad for Cacique lingerie during a show I watch from time to time and I think the model in the ad is beautiful. But I have to admit when I saw her I thought "sexy". In my opinion it wasn't offensive sexy, but sexy nonetheless. And then that got me wondering, do I think "sexy" when I see Victoria's Secret ads? The answer is that generally I do not. Now I thought that this was because I had seen those ads so many times that I had gotten used to Victoria's Secret models in their underwear so it didn't effect me. But the truth is that I don't personally find them sexy. To me they are pretty, beautiful, and certainly very fit, but not sexy. When I see a woman I think is sexy she doesn't look like a Victoria's Secret model. She is often curvier, with cleavage, and hips. So does this mean that as a society we still think that boobs = too much sex? Do we see a straighter, more up and down figure, and think tomboy? It's terrible, really, that just a minor change in the shape of a womans figure can change what you think of her without even knowing her.
So, I say air the ad, represent both sides equally and maybe we will get to a point where a curvy woman wont be such a shock for the audience. Maybe the curvy woman can catch a break and not have to worry that what she is saying, doing, or wearing is too sexy because she apparently already exudes sex because of her shape. And maybe in doing so we'll get the world to see that all shapes of woman are equally beautiful and equally sexy and if you're going to have a problem with seeing skin then it should be with seeing any skin on any shape.
To see the Lane Bryant ad click here.
To read some current articles about the controversy click here.
For those who haven't already heard, Lane Bryant has revamped it's Cacique lingerie line and are wanting to run ads announcing it's new products. So, naturally they did their research and determined they would get their message to many of their customers if they air an ad during Monday night's Dancing with the stars on ABC. According to Lane Bryant, ABC did not want to air the ad, saying it was not appropriate for prime time. They eventually gave in and said it could air, but only in the last 10 minutes of the show. The reason they felt the ad was inappropriate was because the model "had too much cleavage," and apparently that could be a problem for viewers. Lane Bryant is also claiming a similar reaction to advertisers over at FOX when they tried to purchase a spot during American Idol.
Now Lane Bryant is crying foul because they feel like this is discrimination. The lingerie featured in the ad is pretty generously cut bras, panties, and chemises. They are also saying that both ABC and FOX have been running Victoria's Secret ads during the same slots they were trying to purchase. Victoria's Secret ads often show as much or more cleavage and skin. Lane Bryant points out that a fuller figured woman often has large breasts and that there is nothing offensive about the models body or how it is dressed. They claim the networks are discriminating because the model is plus sized.
Ok, so now you have the facts, as best I understand them. Here's where I go "Huh?" with all of this back and forth from the networks and Lane Bryant. I understand that the networks have the right to decide what could be offensive to their viewers. Yes, the model has more cleavage than an average television actress or model would have. But is it an offensive amount of cleavage? Heck no. Is the model doing anything, suggesting anything, or posing inappropriately? No. And remember that they were wanting to show this during Dancing with the Stars. Now, I'm no prude but sometimes the costumes, or lack there of, make even me uncomfortable. And that certainly has nothing to do with the dancers size, since all of the dancing professionals are very thin.
Here is what I think this means for our society and how it must change. Being plus sized I automatically jump to the side of Lane Bryant and the full figure woman. I would appreciate seeing an ad for Cacique lingerie during a show I watch from time to time and I think the model in the ad is beautiful. But I have to admit when I saw her I thought "sexy". In my opinion it wasn't offensive sexy, but sexy nonetheless. And then that got me wondering, do I think "sexy" when I see Victoria's Secret ads? The answer is that generally I do not. Now I thought that this was because I had seen those ads so many times that I had gotten used to Victoria's Secret models in their underwear so it didn't effect me. But the truth is that I don't personally find them sexy. To me they are pretty, beautiful, and certainly very fit, but not sexy. When I see a woman I think is sexy she doesn't look like a Victoria's Secret model. She is often curvier, with cleavage, and hips. So does this mean that as a society we still think that boobs = too much sex? Do we see a straighter, more up and down figure, and think tomboy? It's terrible, really, that just a minor change in the shape of a womans figure can change what you think of her without even knowing her.
So, I say air the ad, represent both sides equally and maybe we will get to a point where a curvy woman wont be such a shock for the audience. Maybe the curvy woman can catch a break and not have to worry that what she is saying, doing, or wearing is too sexy because she apparently already exudes sex because of her shape. And maybe in doing so we'll get the world to see that all shapes of woman are equally beautiful and equally sexy and if you're going to have a problem with seeing skin then it should be with seeing any skin on any shape.
To see the Lane Bryant ad click here.
To read some current articles about the controversy click here.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Weight Loss Programs and the Work Place
Recently in the news Whole Foods new employee weight management program has created quite a stir. The summary of the new voluntary program is that employees who are categorized as healthier can get a larger employee discount on purchases, from the normal 20% to up to 30% off. Participating employees would be categorized based on four criteria: nicotine use, blood pressure, cholesterol, and BMI. Employees would be placed into one of four categories being either platinum, gold, silver, or bronze, or technically none of the above if a participating employee did not qualify for any of the categories.
Of course this is causing a lot of controversy and I have to say my stomach flipped when I saw this. Trying to wrap my head around the reasoning behind a program like this I tried very hard to convince myself that this was not sprouting from hatred of overweight people but that there is some good intentions here. This is what I came up with:
Healthier people are happier and that makes a better appearance at a store.
Healthier people cost the company less in cases where health insurance is provided.
And basically that's all I got. Notice that I am using the term "healthier" and not "skinnier" because a lot of people can confuse the two. Now I personally think there is a huge flaw in the system because it judges you based on your lowest category. So if I was overweight with healthy blood pressure, cholesterol, and didn't smoke I could not qualify for a larger discount. Or if you were a body builder and had a large BMI (because we all know that BMI is not a great measuring device) then you could also place yourself out of the discount level. And to make it worse is that if there are employees who don't qualify, wouldn't you WANT to give them a bigger break. If you want to give incentive to buy more healthy foods at a health food stores you should give it to those who would need it most. On top of that, I feel that you would never want to set up something where your employees have the chance to judge each other further. Imagine buying some items at Whole Foods where you worked and having to get rung up by a fellow employee. They would see what discount you had gotten and,whether or not they wanted to, start to form opinions about you. And lastly, I don't think it's wise for an employer to document this health information. It seems like they are setting themselves up for a law suit. What if someone is fired, whether for legitimate reasons or not, and they claim they were fired because they were fat. The same goes for promotions or scheduling issues. Having that information on file is very dangerous for the employees and the employer.
Read the article here and see what you can come up with.
Then, of all things, this crept into my own workplace with the suggestion of company wide Weight Watchers meetings being implemented. Again, my stomach flipped. Since this was really just a rumor I went straight to the Weight Watchers site myself to see how they conduct meetings that are held for a company.
After reading their brochure here are my concerns :
Weight Watchers says "There is no question that active, physically fit employees have better work performance." Since when? I am overweight and I perform just as well (sometimes better) than my skinnier coworkers. There are many lifestyle choices that cause someone to be a bad worker but I have never heard that being overweight automatically makes you one. I have never taken more than 50% of my allotted sick days and usually have vacation left over at the end of the year. I don't come in late, leave early, or take super long lunches. I eat at my desk at least twice a week. So while there may be research to say that overweight people might have more personal issues to deal with in some polls, it is not fair to make the blanket statement that we are poor workers. It is very discriminatory and it's disappointing coming from Weight Watchers. I always thought Weight Watchers was there for the individual, that they wanted you to succeed because you wanted to succeed. But for their corporate brochure to flat out insult overweight people is a big slap in the face to their customer base. I imagine if I had decided to do Weight Watchers as an individual and upon enrolling they asked me if I was trying to lose weight so I would be a "better worker" I think I would have walked out right then and there. Being overweight doesn't automatically mean you can't do anything and everything that a skinnier person could. And until I truly can't perform the way I should I think I'm going to pass on the free weight management programs.
You can see the Weight Watchers brochure here.
Of course this is causing a lot of controversy and I have to say my stomach flipped when I saw this. Trying to wrap my head around the reasoning behind a program like this I tried very hard to convince myself that this was not sprouting from hatred of overweight people but that there is some good intentions here. This is what I came up with:
Healthier people are happier and that makes a better appearance at a store.
Healthier people cost the company less in cases where health insurance is provided.
And basically that's all I got. Notice that I am using the term "healthier" and not "skinnier" because a lot of people can confuse the two. Now I personally think there is a huge flaw in the system because it judges you based on your lowest category. So if I was overweight with healthy blood pressure, cholesterol, and didn't smoke I could not qualify for a larger discount. Or if you were a body builder and had a large BMI (because we all know that BMI is not a great measuring device) then you could also place yourself out of the discount level. And to make it worse is that if there are employees who don't qualify, wouldn't you WANT to give them a bigger break. If you want to give incentive to buy more healthy foods at a health food stores you should give it to those who would need it most. On top of that, I feel that you would never want to set up something where your employees have the chance to judge each other further. Imagine buying some items at Whole Foods where you worked and having to get rung up by a fellow employee. They would see what discount you had gotten and,whether or not they wanted to, start to form opinions about you. And lastly, I don't think it's wise for an employer to document this health information. It seems like they are setting themselves up for a law suit. What if someone is fired, whether for legitimate reasons or not, and they claim they were fired because they were fat. The same goes for promotions or scheduling issues. Having that information on file is very dangerous for the employees and the employer.
Read the article here and see what you can come up with.
Then, of all things, this crept into my own workplace with the suggestion of company wide Weight Watchers meetings being implemented. Again, my stomach flipped. Since this was really just a rumor I went straight to the Weight Watchers site myself to see how they conduct meetings that are held for a company.
After reading their brochure here are my concerns :
Weight Watchers says "There is no question that active, physically fit employees have better work performance." Since when? I am overweight and I perform just as well (sometimes better) than my skinnier coworkers. There are many lifestyle choices that cause someone to be a bad worker but I have never heard that being overweight automatically makes you one. I have never taken more than 50% of my allotted sick days and usually have vacation left over at the end of the year. I don't come in late, leave early, or take super long lunches. I eat at my desk at least twice a week. So while there may be research to say that overweight people might have more personal issues to deal with in some polls, it is not fair to make the blanket statement that we are poor workers. It is very discriminatory and it's disappointing coming from Weight Watchers. I always thought Weight Watchers was there for the individual, that they wanted you to succeed because you wanted to succeed. But for their corporate brochure to flat out insult overweight people is a big slap in the face to their customer base. I imagine if I had decided to do Weight Watchers as an individual and upon enrolling they asked me if I was trying to lose weight so I would be a "better worker" I think I would have walked out right then and there. Being overweight doesn't automatically mean you can't do anything and everything that a skinnier person could. And until I truly can't perform the way I should I think I'm going to pass on the free weight management programs.
You can see the Weight Watchers brochure here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)