PDA

View Full Version : Discrimination against fat girls



Pages : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9

cruisin
08-23-2010, 01:57 AM
She would be another case that being skinny doesn't mean being fit. She's only in her mid-50's and already suffering from osteoporosis, a symptom of being so small-framed. And Asian, and female. :P

Just an FYI heads up: I'm 5'10", but small boned. I am 57 and have osteopina. So, height is not an indicator of bone density.

This is in the NY Times Magazine today. Apropos. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/t-magazine/22face-merkin-t.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=The%20F%20Word&st=cse

oleada
08-23-2010, 02:08 AM
Well, it's also that a lot of people's metabolisms change when they age and in order for their bodies to look as fit, they'd have to work a lot harder to keep it up and many people aren't willing/able to do that.


That's true, but a lot of people gain a lot of weight as they get older that's beyond what's natural aging and a slowing metabolism. My dad, for example.

My mom is fairly small, but not in anyway a stick. She works hard to keep her shape.

Anita18
08-23-2010, 02:15 AM
Just an FYI heads up: I'm 5'10", but small boned. I am 57 and have osteopina. So, height is not an indicator of bone density.

This is in the NY Times Magazine today. Apropos. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/t-...%20Word&st=cse
I wasn't just referring to height. My mom is tiny is all ways there are to be tiny. She has never weighed enough to give blood (okay, maaaaybe she did when she was pregnant, but I don't think she remembers :lol: ), but she's about 5'1". It's actually a big deal when she manages to hit triple digits. :lol: By looking at how small our wrists are, it's very obvious that no one in my family was meant to carry a lot of weight. So that's how I try not to feel guilty about my natural frame nowadays.

I'm still not sure about the NY Times Magazine article. As I think all of us can agree, high fashion is another world unto itself. I frequent another forum populated mostly by young men, and from my experience, they perceive pretty much any girl as hot if she possesses a come hither look and is generally done up to look sultry. (Although cleavage is a plus. :P ) Body type isn't as important as overall packaging. Heterosexual men aren't as aware of what's "in" in high fashion as much as women are, which is why I think many women have the mistaken idea that all men prefer stick-thin models when from my experience it's not the case. You can be stick-thin but packaged like an awkward dork (like moi :rofl: ) and you still wouldn't be perceived as hot. It's about packaging and thus, the attitude.

*Jen*
08-23-2010, 07:21 AM
But, models are not within the range of normal.

But no one is saying that they are. That's not the point. The point is, models are either below the range or normal at 0, or else in the upper range at 12. There's nothing in between.

Veronika
08-23-2010, 02:38 PM
Not all guys are obsessed with weight...my dad is though. He has always been, and always will be. He is really hard on my mom (who is a healthy weight, and just has a small tummy roll) and he barely eats anything himself. He has always been extra tough on me, telling me repeatedly that I would "be so beautiful if I lost the weight." Being overweight is not my choice--but I have a poor metabolism, I hate exercise, and I love food. I don't think I'll ever be skinny--I just want to be healthy and comfortable.

I have gained about 40 pounds since I met my husband. I was doing Weight Watchers for about 4 years when I met him, and I could never figure out how to stay on track with that as a part of my new life (being a couple.) Luckily, my husband has never said anything bad to me about my weight (he's overweight too, so I guess that helps--or hurts?) The only thing he says (when pressed) is that he thinks I am beautiful now, but I would be even more beautiful if I lost the weight.

I am worried about discrimination when finding a new job--I've been trying to get a new job for over a year now. I am a size 18/20, which is the largest I've ever been. I know that potential employers aren't allowed to openly discriminate against people based on weight, but they can figure out legal ways to shut you out.

danceronice
08-23-2010, 03:49 PM
I think the angry tone can come from women who are in that 10-14 range, which is the majority of the population, who feel like they're fighting a losing a battle because they're not considered "slim", but the rational part of their brains KNOWS they're not hugely overweight or obese. I never quite believe being told I look okay because I'm not a size 6 or smaller. (At my thinnest, skating three hours a day, I could sometimes fit into 8s.) Even when my (heterosexual male) dance instructors are completely fine with how I look in my costumes--heck, I was complaining about my size to one of them and he gave a funny look and said "If you want to be *fitter*, we can help with that, but if you want to be *thinner*--" and he put his hands on my hips, his point being--that's bone. My pelvis isn't going to get any narrower because that's how it's shaped. Even when I could fit, from the waist down, into my mother's old wedding dress, I couldn't zip it because I'm much broader-shouldered than she is. But as far as clothing sizes go, or shopping for clothes (especially bathing suits), whether it's body frame or fat isn't relevant. You don't deserve to dress well if you're not small. After you get that beaten into you, you start to get angry.

And while of course not all or even most thin girls are stupid, that's another thing--if you're not slim and conventionally attractive, people make assumptions about your intelligence, too. You're stupid, you're lazy, etc.

While fashions vary, anthropological and psychological studies HAVE found, though, that heterosexual males tend to prefer women with a smaller waist and wider hips (pears and hourglasses) and when asked to select which is the most desirable figure of a series of silhouttes presented them, they chose one with those proportions which appears 10-15 lbs heavier than the one chosen by women as ideal when presented the same options. This makes sense, much like the innate preference for symmetrical features (an indication of health and better genes) in human faces--the body shape men preferred is generally that of a more fertile female. Much the way our appetites are by and large stuck in the Neolithic (protein+fat = yum), so is our mating drive. Men aren't going to want HUGE women (though that doesn't excuse making nasty remarks about them) but they don't want the super-skinny so much, either.

ETA: This is an interesting comparison--a thread about "skinny" riders on a riding forum turned into a WHOLE lot of "fat girls are just jealous beyotches and you don't know how HAARRRRRDDDDD it is being a size two, it makes my life SOOOOO DIFFICULT and people are SO MEAN TO ME." I'm not seeing much of that here. (Even, surprisingly, the totally legitimate gripe about trying to find clothes that fit if you're tiny is just as hard as finding non-ugly larger sizes.)

cruisin
08-23-2010, 04:08 PM
^^ I don't think anyone is ever happy with themself. When I shop for clothes, my biggest gripe is that everything is usually too short, sleeves, pants, shoulder to waist, rise (and that one hurts!). The other people in the stores always feel the need to tell me how awful it is to be shorter and have to hem their pants. I always :lol:, and say well at least you have that option, I can't lengthen mine. I also have trouble with straight and skinny jeans/pants. I have muscular calves, so they are bigger than my hip/butt size. When I comment (usually jokingly), I get told that I'm so thin and that I don't have big legs. Well, I still can't get the pants up over my huge calves. I am not complaining, I walk 2 miles a day, I created those big calves :lol:, they take me places :lol:.

But, I wish I came in more at the waist and I wish my hips and butt were a little curvier. I wish my boobs were still on my chest. And I need to buy a new mirror with fewer wrinkles. Never happy!

Veronika
08-23-2010, 04:30 PM
I think the only universal thing is that it's hard for women to shop for clothes--every body has its quirks.

I'm 5 foot 10, but I have a long torso and relatively short legs. I can wear average length pants (32/33 inch inseams), but I have to be very careful to find shirts that are long enough. Luckily plus size shirts are usually longer, so that helps. I had more problems with shirts when I was still wearing women's XL tops.

My sister is the opposite--she's 3 inches shorter than I am, and her legs are about 2-3 inches longer than mine. She sometimes wears petite tops, even though she is 5 foot 7.

PDilemma
08-23-2010, 05:31 PM
My sister is the opposite--she's 3 inches shorter than I am, and her legs are about 2-3 inches longer than mine. She sometimes wears petite tops, even though she is 5 foot 7.

That's me--petite tops and long or tall length pants most of the time. My college roommate and I were the same clothing size by the number on the tags, but couldn't borrow each other's clothes --especially not pants. She was 5'9" with a long torso and short legs and I am not quite 5'7" with a short torso and long legs.

I'm fairly certain that no living woman is proportioned exactly the same as women's clothing is cut.

Anita18
08-23-2010, 06:16 PM
And while of course not all or even most thin girls are stupid, that's another thing--if you're not slim and conventionally attractive, people make assumptions about your intelligence, too. You're stupid, you're lazy, etc.
My friend pointed out how some men went for model-thin girls because of the superficiality ("look, I can date a high-fashion model who obsesses over weight, hair, and clothing!") and I was like, "Gee, thanks." No wonder why I'm so adamant in my awkward dorkiness. If I dressed right for my body type, all I'd attract would be the douchebags. :lol: That and it takes waaay too much money and effort...


ETA: This is an interesting comparison--a thread about "skinny" riders on a riding forum turned into a WHOLE lot of "fat girls are just jealous beyotches and you don't know how HAARRRRRDDDDD it is being a size two, it makes my life SOOOOO DIFFICULT and people are SO MEAN TO ME." I'm not seeing much of that here. (Even, surprisingly, the totally legitimate gripe about trying to find clothes that fit if you're tiny is just as hard as finding non-ugly larger sizes.)
It probably depends on the experiences we've had. Both skating and riding are sports which requires being thin, and eating disorders are rampant in both, but I think being thin beyond a certain point in skating is an aesthetic thing, whereas the horse will go faster if you weigh less. :P

It also depends on the tone of the first post. Nobody wants to disagree straight out with the tone of the entire thread, unless they're trolling and really asking for it. :lol:

I sometimes do feel guilty about my thinness. I used to worry sometimes when another woman was staring at me, that she's either thinking that she shouldn't have eaten lunch that day, or I must be one of those superficial skinny bitches. But I really can't help it and my friend did observe that it's pretty darned obvious it's my natural body type when looking at my frame. So I don't feel so guilty about it now. What other people think about my weight has nothing to do with me. (But if someone came up to me and said I was thinspiration...:scream: :scream: :scream: )

And even though I've never experienced it, I don't think it's on the same level than being thought of as lazy or disgusting or stupid for being fat. :( I just wish that people wouldn't worry about such things. If you're fit and healthy, who cares about the number of the scale or the tag on your clothes?


I'm fairly certain that no living woman is proportioned exactly the same as women's clothing is cut.
There must be - otherwise how would they size the clothing to begin with? ;) The rub is that the sample size models must be within a very very small range of measurements to fit a "standard", so I guess it's a self-perpetuating situation. :lol:

PRlady
08-23-2010, 06:32 PM
That's me--petite tops and long or tall length pants most of the time. My college roommate and I were the same clothing size by the number on the tags, but couldn't borrow each other's clothes --especially not pants. She was 5'9" with a long torso and short legs and I am not quite 5'7" with a short torso and long legs.

I'm fairly certain that no living woman is proportioned exactly the same as women's clothing is cut.

Well, you and could trade clothes since I am exactly your height and torso/leg proportion. Sitting down I look like I'm 5'4" or so. I'm chesty and short-waisted and always looking for blouses that will make look longer and thinner on top (let's hear it for princess seams.) And I need slacks cut small in the hip and thigh but plenty of belly room, sigh.

The problem is that the ideal, whatever it is at a given time, represents about 1% of the female population and the rest of us just feel stuck with whatever parts don't comply.

PDilemma
08-23-2010, 06:37 PM
Well, you and could trade clothes since I am exactly your height and torso/leg proportion. Sitting down I look like I'm 5'4" or so. I'm chesty and short-waisted and always looking for blouses that will make look longer and thinner on top (let's hear it for princess seams.) And I need slacks cut small in the hip and thigh but plenty of belly room, sigh.

The problem is that the ideal, whatever it is at a given time, represents about 1% of the female population and the rest of us just feel stuck with whatever parts don't comply.

Alas...we can't help each other. I need my pants roomy in the hips and thighs, but I have a small waist. And my chest is nothing to brag about. I am a pear shaped nightmare. I like Gap because they have the pants and jeans cut "curvy" so I can get size 4 or 6 jeans with room for my hips that aren't so big in the waist. Other stores...nightmares. I can't get my butt in anything smaller than a 10 at Loft then I have room to carry the rabbit in the waist band or skip the purse and just put a wallet and all my other crap there.

Holley Calmes
08-23-2010, 06:57 PM
The rub is that the sample size models must be within a very very small range of measurements to fit a "standard", so I guess it's a self-perpetuating situation. :lol:

I can't speak for every line, but my daughter's sister in law is a Missy size "fit model" in NYC. She's the one they "fit" their size 12 and size large on as they are creating standard patterns once they have an approved design. She works for several different lines, and although I can't remember all of them, they're pretty familiar names (Land's End is one.)

I can promise you that she is very shapely and not at all starving, nor does she look smaller than a 12, though I'd not call her fat or even plump at all. She works out a lot, but she's not athletic looking either. A very healthy looking person who looks like a real woman! And she eats normally, too. We're pretty close. If there are specific questions about the industry, I'd be happy to ask her.

I'm not saying she's the norm, but she's the only one I know, and she seems to be a real size 12. Then again, I'm a twelve but I'm shorter, have bigger boobs, and generaslly don't look like her! Darn it.

danceronice
08-23-2010, 07:18 PM
LOL, in the riding forums I'm talking about (hunter) you don't WANT the horse to go faster! (There is a legitimate point that after a certain weight you can INJURE the horse, but we're talking +20% of the horse's weight there, not 10 extra pounds.) In racing, the weight's about speed and safety on young horses, in hunters, it's about looks.

In racing, jockeys are almost universally men who are shorter than the national average and very light-boned (there are some women, but besides not being as much shorter than average women, the frame necessary is similar) and to be successful flat racing, you need two things: to accept the fact that you WILL be seriously injured and possibly killed if this is your job, and to weigh no more than 115 lbs MAX naked (and if you're that heavy you'll be limited in what you can ride as most horses race carrying 115 to 119 lbs including all the equipment and lead weights. Ideal for a jock is 100-110lbs.) They're also at minimum sixteen, and most are in their twenties and thirties. You can be a little heavier for 'chasing and for galloping (exercising) but it's not about looks, it's about making weight. You can fall out of the ugly tree and get beaten with the ugly stick when you land, but so long as you can make the weight and ride well enough to make money, you're good. The horses are younger and putting their joints under heavy athletic stress, so the less weight, the better as well.

For HUNTERS, the ideal physique is about 5'7", willowy, thin limbs, and looks pretty on a horse. (Note I'm talking show hunters.) The idea is that this build presents the nicest picture, never mind that real foxhunters don't generally look like that. Real foxhunters generally don't take eight fences at measured paces using a predetermined 'right' number of strides between, either. You CAN win if you don't look like that, but it's harder. They're not supposed to be judging the rider in hunter, but "turnout" is part of it and that can be very broadly defined. The horses are usually eight or older and heavier breeds, so rarely are they carrying anything close to too much weight.

A good portion of the hunter (and equitation, rider-judged event) people in the discussion are or were teenage hunter princesses from a very upper-middle-class background, though, which might ALSO be skewing the results.

Anita18
08-23-2010, 07:27 PM
LOL, in the riding forums I'm talking about (hunter) you don't WANT the horse to go faster! (There is a legitimate point that after a certain weight you can INJURE the horse, but we're talking +20% of the horse's weight there, not 10 extra pounds.) In racing, the weight's about speed and safety on young horses, in hunters, it's about looks.

In racing, jockeys are almost universally men who are shorter than the national average and very light-boned (there are some women, but besides not being as much shorter than average women, the frame necessary is similar) and to be successful flat racing, you need two things: to accept the fact that you WILL be seriously injured and possibly killed if this is your job, and to weigh no more than 115 lbs MAX naked (and if you're that heavy you'll be limited in what you can ride as most horses race carrying 115 to 119 lbs including all the equipment and lead weights. Ideal for a jock is 100-110lbs.) They're also at minimum sixteen, and most are in their twenties and thirties. You can be a little heavier for 'chasing and for galloping (exercising) but it's not about looks, it's about making weight. You can fall out of the ugly tree and get beaten with the ugly stick when you land, but so long as you can make the weight and ride well enough to make money, you're good. The horses are younger and putting their joints under heavy athletic stress, so the less weight, the better as well.

For HUNTERS, the ideal physique is about 5'7", willowy, thin limbs, and looks pretty on a horse. (Note I'm talking show hunters.) The idea is that this build presents the nicest picture, never mind that real foxhunters don't generally look like that. Real foxhunters generally don't take eight fences at measured paces using a predetermined 'right' number of strides between, either. You CAN win if you don't look like that, but it's harder. They're not supposed to be judging the rider in hunter, but "turnout" is part of it and that can be very broadly defined. The horses are usually eight or older and heavier breeds, so rarely are they carrying anything close to too much weight.

A good portion of the hunter (and equitation, rider-judged event) people in the discussion are or were teenage hunter princesses from a very upper-middle-class background, though, which might ALSO be skewing the results.
Ah, I was only thinking of race horses. My friend's dad was scouted to be a jockey when he was younger. The man is so tiny, it's downright adorable. The first time I saw him standing with the rest of his family, I was like, "OMG he's shorter than his wife and both his daughters!" :lol:

The upper-middle class part is definitely skewing the results, I'd say. If the girls were used to feeling entitled with a can-do-no-wrong upbringing, their defensiveness isn't all that surprising. :shuffle: