Perspective Plus discussion

General > Size discrimination in the news

Comments (showing 1-25 of 25) (25 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Kim, Proud Queen of the Fat and Fabulous! (new)

Kim (MrsNesbitt) | 1031 comments Mod
This story,to me,is really about greedy companies trying to justify why they are doing something. Blaming fat people just gives it a public spin that is "palatable" to the masses since we are already a "health issue". Over all,this is size discrimination regardless of your size and EVERYONE should be outraged and stand up for their rights.

Now, I have never been on an airplane in my life (no need) and I have heard the horror stories about seat belts and seat size from those I have known who have flown. These comments have come from all shapes and sizes for many years. We have all heard about greedy airlines trying to justify their existence,security costs,fuel costs, etc. for years. Seat sizes are shrinking to pack in more passengers, which then causes you to have to buy either a larger more expensive seat in a different class or to purchase 2 or more seats to ensure you have enough room.

Most seats now are 17" wide. This is a narrow seat for most people, except waif models and children. According to an article in this mornings paper, obesity is growing as seats shrink. One woman's story was that she and her daughter were seated next alongside a "woman of size" (the new euphemism for fat) and that said woman spilled over into the first woman's seat, so much in fact, that woman #1 could not lower her tray, or fasten her seat-belt. The airline claims that she should have said something BEFORE the flight took off. She claims she did.

The airlines maintain that you should tell them of your size when you buy a ticket or get to the gate so they can assist you with finding a seat that will allow you to travel in peace. Benet (BEN' ay) J. Wilson who is a travel journalist and blogger out of Boston, has the side of the larger traveler as she is one.

She says that this problem is getting worse and worse as airlines cram more and more people into seats. As seats in coach have shrunk from 25" to 17", even non-large passengers are cramped and feeling the pinch. James Zervios of the Obesity Action Collation in Tampa agrees that airlines need to acknoslege 93 million of us need that space.

This is not a skinny person vs. fat person issue. It is getting to the point where only the dangerously thin will be able to fly if this trend keeps up. An average sized person is having trouble fitting into these seats at this moment. If that person doesn't speak up to an attendant, the airline feels that there is no problem.

There is indeed a problem. A big one that affects all of us. This is size discrimination at it's worst. This affects us all and we all need to stand up for each other on this one. Shrinking seats start here, but where will they end?

message 2: by Kim, Proud Queen of the Fat and Fabulous! (new)

Kim (MrsNesbitt) | 1031 comments Mod
I was reading in the paper today that seat belt usage in cars was down in Ohio in 2011. In Ohio, it is a secondary offense not to be wearing one, meaning that you cannot be pulled over for not wearing it, but can be fined if you are being issued a ticket for something else. No reasons were given as to why no people were not wearing them and arguments as to why this should be a first offense and why you should be wearing them were given.

One argument that was not dealt with was size of people in the cars. I know from experience when I have had rental cars, that not all makes and models have seat belts that are long enough for me and the rental companies do not offer extenders. I have to use an extender in my car, a 2000 model, but I did not need one in my '94 model. They are/were GM cars, but the '94's had door mounted seat belts. The 2000 and up are seat mounted. You loose 6 inches of belt with this change.

"Belts were changed because door mounted are less safe in an accident than interior or seat mounted ones. If emergency crews have to remove a door, you could be harmed by the belt where as interior mounted ones are safer." was an explanation I was given at a dealership when I asked. (My theory is shorter belts save them money.)

Yes,GM and Ford offer free extenders, Dodge makes you pay for one, and I do not know about other companies, but why not just make the flapping belt longer in the first place? A longer belt will still keep your tiny heinnie in place as well as your well rounded one, your short and your tall driver/passenger, your pregnant woman, and perhaps would even make more people want to wear the thing if it were more comfortable.

I have heard all kinds of stories and reasons to wear or not wear a seat belt. I feel that belts are a personal choice and not something to be forced on us because there are pro's and con's to the blasted things. (The truly safest place in your car is the floor directly behind the driver or passenger seats as car seats really aren't that safe either, they just keep a kid from becoming a projectile, yet the seat can trap them just as much as save them.)

I think that this is a subtle size discrimination that again, affects all of us,regardless of your size, height or what have you. If the government wants us to focus on safety, then make the companies focus on keeping us alive.

message 3: by Kim, Proud Queen of the Fat and Fabulous! (last edited Jan 25, 2013 07:03AM) (new)

Kim (MrsNesbitt) | 1031 comments Mod
According to an article in today's paper, obese people are 21% more likely to die in a car crash and morbidly obese people are 80% more likely to die in a car crash.
This comes from a decade long study done by the Emergency Medical Journal. There was no mention (in brief article) of how tall/short the subjects were, nor what types of vehicles/crashes in which they were involved.

The speculation is ill-fitting seat belts combined with other medical problems could be to blame.

Well, duh!

message 4: by Kim, Proud Queen of the Fat and Fabulous! (new)

Kim (MrsNesbitt) | 1031 comments Mod
I found this one today on Yahoo!

I have not heard of this chain before,but this is typical of many retailers that put ANY size above a 12 in the back like we should be ashamed of ourselves. This is beyond fat discrimination, this is size discrimination at it's ugliest. We all put up with this practice and it beyond wrong.

message 5: by Narzain (new)

Narzain | 194 comments So, a company of skinny twinkies who can't even make yoga pants that aren't see-through doesn't want the business of more than half of America? Good riddance to them! I hope people support their competitors who do provide larger sizes.

message 6: by Kim, Proud Queen of the Fat and Fabulous! (new)

Kim (MrsNesbitt) | 1031 comments Mod
This is the other end of size discrimination and is just as bad as our end.

message 7: by Narzain (new)

Narzain | 194 comments That is just beyond ridiculous. From the pictures, she seems like a perfectly healthy young lady of petite height and slim build. Once again, the artificial measuring stick of BMI is being used to abuse people a la Procrustes (that charming innkeeper from Greek myth who forced travelers to fit his one bed, either stretching them out or chopping bits off).

message 8: by Kim, Proud Queen of the Fat and Fabulous! (new)

Kim (MrsNesbitt) | 1031 comments Mod
I know that this is not directly discrimination, but it leads to the concept by what we do to ourselves.

message 9: by Kim, Proud Queen of the Fat and Fabulous! (new)

Kim (MrsNesbitt) | 1031 comments Mod

What really gets me is that this woman knows what she is doing and is teaching others how to do this safely and yet she is still getting crud from all sides. it isn't like she is doing harm to her self or her unborn child. I mean if she was falling down drunk and chain smoking then I could see the gafuffle.

message 10: by Narzain (new)

Narzain | 194 comments Yeah, that's pretty nuts. Of course, part of the crud she's getting is the same old story of why so many of us will never set foot in a gym. If you don't look like you've already been on a hardcore fitness regimen your entire life, you get mocked from all sides.

message 11: by Kim, Proud Queen of the Fat and Fabulous! (new)

Kim (MrsNesbitt) | 1031 comments Mod
Here we go again with a pregnant woman who is being seemingly targeted by a gym. Now, I will give the gym the fact that they said that is because her top was riding up and showing off her stomach,which is a violation for anyone. I kinda feel that she could wear a better fitting top (she's pregnant, I already can tell that, I don't need to see it hanging out as well, which has been a disturbing trend as of late) but if she was targeted just because she is pregnant,it is very wrong.

message 12: by Narzain (new)

Narzain | 194 comments Okay, yes, she could have chosen her outfit better. Though it looks like the problem is more that her tights are riding so low they're almost indecent. Still, for an inch and a half of gap they're causing that much trouble? There's a difference between a bare-midriff outfit and a top that rides up while one is working out.

message 13: by Sophia (new)

Sophia Martin | 45 comments I've had one child, and in my experience, when you're pregnant your clothes just don't behave the way you expect them to. You've spent X years of your life wearing the same sort of stuff, and all of a sudden nothing fits the way it used to. It seems so obvious from the outside, but when you're going through it, it's weird. I don't see how anyone would object to seeing a little sliver of tummy, personally. However, I wouldn't object to the place having and enforcing a dress code, as long as it was the same for everyone. It sounds like they have a pretty arbitrary approach to enforcement, however. Pregnant bodies are beautiful, but are they threatening to some? Seems that way to me.

message 14: by Kim, Proud Queen of the Fat and Fabulous! (new)

Kim (MrsNesbitt) | 1031 comments Mod
If is truly a dress code infraction, then yes by all means enforce it for everyone. If it was a case of "I'm pregnant and you WILL look at me" then, yes, she's in the wrong.

message 15: by Sophia (new)

Sophia Martin | 45 comments I don't see what's wrong with wanting to be looked at, especially because one is proud of a pregnant body. I never felt as good about my body as I did when I was pregnant. I've never felt more beautiful. I wasn't going around thrusting my belly in people's faces, but I was proud, and I did want people to know I was pregnant (not just fat). It was a singular experience for me.

message 16: by Kim, Proud Queen of the Fat and Fabulous! (last edited May 08, 2014 06:15AM) (new)

Kim (MrsNesbitt) | 1031 comments Mod
This falls under "You've GOT to be kidding me!" Frankly, I feel that her "after photo" is realistic,therefore it is seen as wrong. No six pack or anything so she must be hidden.

message 17: by Narzain (new)

Narzain | 194 comments I'd like to believe Shape's assertion that it was the freelancer's decision, not theirs, but quite frankly I don't. That just sounded too much like backpedaling and covering their butts. They claim to 'empower and celebrate' women like her, but every issue I've shelved at the store has nothing but flat, toned stomachs pictured. So apparently, once you've erased all trace of having ever been fat, then you can be 'empowered and celebrated.' Grrrrrr.

Pardon me, I'm about to go celebrate my real-sized lady with a big hug; she's already quite empowered, thanks very much.

message 18: by Kim, Proud Queen of the Fat and Fabulous! (new)

Kim (MrsNesbitt) | 1031 comments Mod
I apologize kids for not including the above link yesterday and for any confusion you may have had. Sorry, but somebody asked me a question and I apparently can only focus on one thing at a time.

He did indeed come over and hug me. I like to think that all of us are empowered,it's just that some us don't know how to embrace it. We are all here in this together and We are all special wonderful people.

message 19: by Paul (new)

Paul (merman1967) | 228 comments How horrible for her to be treated like that. She is awesome. And so is our Kim! Huggies dear!

message 20: by Kim, Proud Queen of the Fat and Fabulous! (new)

Kim (MrsNesbitt) | 1031 comments Mod
Thank you,you are so sweet.

message 21: by Kim, Proud Queen of the Fat and Fabulous! (new)

Kim (MrsNesbitt) | 1031 comments Mod
I have to say that is not discrimination per say, but it is in SUCH bad taste that it borders on discrimination, especially the end of the article where the companies "terms of use prohibitions' are listed.

message 22: by Kim, Proud Queen of the Fat and Fabulous! (new)

Kim (MrsNesbitt) | 1031 comments Mod
I feel that if this is really about "Asian Markets" over seas, then make it about them. This really is sizeist.

message 23: by Kim, Proud Queen of the Fat and Fabulous! (new)

Kim (MrsNesbitt) | 1031 comments Mod
This is a twist on the usual bashing...

message 24: by Narzain (new)

Narzain | 194 comments First, I would like to apologize for letting this group lie fallow. The utter lack of activity is exactly what I did NOT want to happen after Kim passed. I can't promise that I will be as diligent as I should, but I do intend to make more of an effort.

That said, here's one from the flip side of the coin:

After all, size discrimination can go both ways. And, quite frankly, Katherine Webb is the flip-side of our own founder. Her appearance is affected by her height and a thyroid condition, and she is being judged for it.

Whether one is 5'11" or 5'3" or any other height, fat, thin, or in between, we are who we are. No one should be judged or mocked because of how they happen to be built.

message 25: by Paul (new)

Paul (merman1967) | 228 comments Very true Narzain. Well said.

back to top