# Article: Is Agustin Carstens too Fat to be IMF Chief?



## LovelyLiz (Jun 12, 2011)

Here is an article that asks the question about whether due to his "morbid obesity" (geez, that phrase is so horrible), Agustin Carstens should not be considered for the position of IMF chief since it's such a demanding job and potentially his "energy level" and "health" may not be up for it.

In general I do think that people should do jobs they are equipped for and able to do well. I also think that for some fat people, their fat can contribute to having less energy to undertake strenuous tasks (this only applies to SOME fat people, of course). But whether it applies to the particular fat person in the article, well, that's pure speculation and the author is engaging in irresponsible conjecturing. (In the news media?!?!?!?  I know, shocking.)


----------



## JulianDW (Jun 12, 2011)

Sheesh, the first thing you see in the article is a picture of him eating :doh: what a way to enforce a stereotype. The article did go into what made him a good candidate and mentioned that this focus on weight could be (probably is) discrimination 
"The issue of obesity could be seen as discrimination and in many cases it would be."
This article does feed on the general belief of what most believe fat people are like. But, it appears he's also been in politics a while, so _if_ he was gonna pass out or something over the _grueling schedule_ like the author suggests, it probably would've happened by now I think.


----------



## LovelyLiz (Jun 12, 2011)

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention the photo used in the article. Totally agree - what a ridiculous choice for a professional man in finance (albeit, not a surprising choice).

And I totally agree with your last line. Great point, Julian.


----------



## Lamia (Jun 12, 2011)

I kept reading that as chef instead of chief....guess my Freudian slip is showing. 

I think it's the most ignorant crap I've ever read. Stress affects everyone and being fat doesn't make you more vulnerable.


----------



## EMH1701 (Jun 12, 2011)

What does one's weight have to do with one's finance skills, pray tell? I hate those kinds of articles.


----------



## superodalisque (Jun 12, 2011)

its a valid question. all they have to do is give him the same stress test they give to any other executive to see if they are physically fit enough for the job. releasing this was some kind of political move probably made by someone else who wants the job. this isn't an issue for public concern or debate.

btw i didn't click on it because i don't want to support a site that would put this out there as news. thanks to the op for boiling it so i could decide not to support them by viewing their advertising because of their negative fat exploitative headline.


----------



## Jes (Jun 13, 2011)

I loved this line from McIntyre:

The issue of obesity could be seen as discrimination and in many cases it would be. 


...and then he just ignores himself and continues. Haha. 

If everyone gets a health test (like, say, an astronaut), then fine. But if no one gets a health test, then forget it. Italy and France are full of chain smokers, but they still fill seats in public office, etc! Maybe the author is just mad b/c the other contender is a woman, and we all know how women are bitchy and insane for 1 week out of every month. Poor IMF, only 2 choices: banshee or fatty.

And yeah, nice eating shot. *tsk tsk* I really hate when things devolve to the lowest common denominator.


----------



## LalaCity (Jun 13, 2011)

I wonder if Dominique Strauss-Kahn, with his history of womanizing, was similarly questioned about his fitness for the position and whether his lifestyle would interfere with his job.


----------



## Jes (Jun 14, 2011)

LalaCity said:


> I wonder if Dominique Strauss-Kahn, with his history of womanizing, was similarly questioned about his fitness for the position and whether his lifestyle would interfere with his job.



Interview:

"Mr. Strauss-Kahn, this job usually requires 15-hour days, but you've indicated on your resume that you like to fuck for at least 8-9 hours a day...."

(Allegedly, of course)


----------



## agouderia (Jun 14, 2011)

http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85510

.... this type of article is what I had been fearing ever since I posted this in the BHM/FFA section!

It actually surprised me it took so long before it came up - and so far, no serious main stream publications have mentioned his weight more than in a plain descriptive way .... like they add 'silver haired' to Christine Lagarde.

But it doesn't surprise me it's a US finance rag that comes up with it - especially not the hypocritically concerned tone.

As far as the two candidates go, as a woman, I'm torn. Both are highly qualified and their personalities - a European woman versus an emerging market SSBHM - bring assets with them that could change the excessively macho culture of the IMF for the better. 
But at least that means, whatever the result, it's a positive change!


----------



## superodalisque (Jun 14, 2011)

LalaCity said:


> I wonder if Dominique Strauss-Kahn, with his history of womanizing, was similarly questioned about his fitness for the position and whether his lifestyle would interfere with his job.



yes they all are. the problem with the article is that it preys on the fact that a lot of people don't now how hiring for people at that level goes.all executives are generally required to do a physical for insurance purposes when they take over high level positions. so like i said before all of this is an empty argument. its up the the company doctors to decide and no one else.

the only problem the guy could potentially have is that he is in bad health or the rest of us keep making such big issue of his size that it starts having political repercussions in the company because it distracts from his job.


----------



## superodalisque (Jun 14, 2011)

LalaCity said:


> I wonder if Dominique Strauss-Kahn, with his history of womanizing, was similarly questioned about his fitness for the position and whether his lifestyle would interfere with his job.



only if the syphilis started wearing him down


----------



## fat hiker (Jun 14, 2011)

superodalisque said:


> yes they all are. the problem with the article is that it preys on the fact that a lot of people don't now how hiring for people at that level goes.all executives are generally required to do a physical for insurance purposes when they take over high level positions. so like i said before all of this is an empty argument. its up the the company doctors to decide and no one else.
> 
> the only problem the guy could potentially have is that he is in bad health or the rest of us keep making such big issue of his size that it starts having political repercussions in the company because it distracts from his job.



Company doctors? The IMF? Sorry, international organisations like the IMF hire on a much more 'political' level than profit-minded, health-expense-minimising, US private corporations.... Health insurance would come with the job, and having seen the background and political hype behind several such appointments, I know there'd be no 'evaluation of fitness' before appointment to such an international body. 

(After all, you have to remember than ONLY the USA, among industrialised countries, doesn't have some form of universal health care - the people who run the IMF would take it for granted that they need to provide health care for their employees, the same as their countries provide it for everyone else. The Europeans who make up the majority of the IMF's Board would be horrified at the idea of choosing an executive based on his healthiness, rather than his political connections and financial background....)


----------



## superodalisque (Jun 14, 2011)

fat hiker said:


> Company doctors? The IMF? Sorry, international organisations like the IMF hire on a much more 'political' level than profit-minded, health-expense-minimising, US private corporations.... Health insurance would come with the job, and having seen the background and political hype behind several such appointments, I know there'd be no 'evaluation of fitness' before appointment to such an international body.
> 
> (After all, you have to remember than ONLY the USA, among industrialised countries, doesn't have some form of universal health care - the people who run the IMF would take it for granted that they need to provide health care for their employees, the same as their countries provide it for everyone else. The Europeans who make up the majority of the IMF's Board would be horrified at the idea of choosing an executive based on his healthiness, rather than his political connections and financial background....)



i'm not talking about an examination for fitness for health insurance, though its sometimes billed as that. it is political. no company wants a COO falling dead in a meeting and maybe even dying with important confidential info only he has. execs don't want to ever look like a weak link so that competitors within the company or adversaries outside of it can take advantage. best bet is he is in pretty decent health already, and that is part of why he is still be considered for the job regardless of his size and part of how he got where he is already. not every fat person is sickly. its really silly of anyone to think that his schedule was not "heavy" (pun intended) before he was considered for the IMF position. i doubt that you get that far in life being sedentary.


----------



## fat hiker (Jun 16, 2011)

A "political" health exam like you are suggesting is illegal in most countries with a Charter of Human Rights, unless you can show that the job has unusual physical demands or requirements. Hiring or not hiring on the basis of such an exam is also out, unless the job description/hiring requirements themselves show why such an exam is necessary. The job descriptions for top international jobs don't have such requirements, AFAIK. And the 'confidential information only he has' is completely untrue for big international organisations like the IMF - only private companies can get away with having trade secrets locked up in the heads of execs, big international bureaucracies have to share and write down such info.

All of which being said, I do hope Carstens gets the job!


----------



## superodalisque (Jun 17, 2011)

fat hiker said:


> A "political" health exam like you are suggesting is illegal in most countries with a Charter of Human Rights, unless you can show that the job has unusual physical demands or requirements. Hiring or not hiring on the basis of such an exam is also out, unless the job description/hiring requirements themselves show why such an exam is necessary. The job descriptions for top international jobs don't have such requirements, AFAIK. And the 'confidential information only he has' is completely untrue for big international organisations like the IMF - only private companies can get away with having trade secrets locked up in the heads of execs, big international bureaucracies have to share and write down such info.
> 
> All of which being said, I do hope Carstens gets the job!



you have no idea. they are always billed as something else but thats where they are for. if the applicants don't cooperate they don't get the job. as far as trade secrets go--thats what you think.


----------



## agouderia (Jun 17, 2011)

There seems to be some basic misunderstanding going on as to the nature of the nomination and election process: The IMF is an independent sub-organisation of the UN and the voting process is purely political - with the particularity that the votes are weighted according to each member countries share in the world economy and thus stake they hold in the IMF. The latter means that little can go against the combined weight of the US and Europe, because together they hold about 46 % of the votes - which has so far ensured the execution of the 'gentleman's agreement' that the IMF head will be a European while the World Bank is headed by a US national.

The Managing Director as successor of DSK is elected by the board of governors which consists only of political figures - either the finance minister or the president of the central bank of each member country.

In this constellation only political criteria count, organizing your votes and bringing the political weight - meaning political and economic competence and experience - to your bid. 
There clearly will be no health check-up or anything similar for this position - nor any other type of personal hearing process as this is done for appointments in the US (example Senate hearings). Such a procedure is completely alien to the political culture of the vast majority of all IMF member countries. The only criterion the IMF has is an upper age limit of 65 - which ruled out Israel's Fischer from running - but again, this is common for such public office in many IMF member countries.

So what it boils down to right now is the question whether the old transatlantic alliance holds true one more time - or if Agustin Carstens can really align the rest of the world's discontent with the outdated structures, as far as economic balance goes, to back him.

As mentioned, as a transatlantic FFA I'm totally torn what I should wish for - Carstens and Lagarde both have unique and novel merits to potentially change the IMF's culture.


----------



## superodalisque (Jun 17, 2011)

agouderia said:


> There seems to be some basic misunderstanding going on as to the nature of the nomination and election process: The IMF is an independent sub-organisation of the UN and the voting process is purely political - with the particularity that the votes are weighted according to each member countries share in the world economy and thus stake they hold in the IMF. The latter means that little can go against the combined weight of the US and Europe, because together they hold about 46 % of the votes - which has so far ensured the execution of the 'gentleman's agreement' that the IMF head will be a European while the World Bank is headed by a US national.
> 
> The Managing Director as successor of DSK is elected by the board of governors which consists only of political figures - either the finance minister or the president of the central bank of each member country.
> 
> ...



yes this us very true on its surface. but no one gets to be the head of any important political organization and stay if they are in bad health. all of that gets sussed out even before they get nominated by such governing bodies. thats my point. you don't get to be a high ranking diplomat if you are in delicate health. the man who appears to have an excellent chance to be the new chairman appears to be highly robust to anyone looking.


----------



## butch (Jun 18, 2011)

superodalisque said:


> yes this us very true on its surface. but no one gets to be the head of any important political organization and stay if they are in bad health. all of that gets sussed out even before they get nominated by such governing bodies. thats my point. you don't get to be a high ranking diplomat if you are in delicate health. the man who appears to have an excellent chance to be the new chairman appears to be highly robust to anyone looking.



But many people think Reagan had alzheimers during part of his term in office, so I wonder how true this is? If you are powerful enough, you have powerful people who can cover for you no matter what is going on in your personal life.


----------



## superodalisque (Jun 18, 2011)

butch said:


> But many people think Reagan had alzheimers during part of his term in office, so I wonder how true this is? If you are powerful enough, you have powerful people who can cover for you no matter what is going on in your personal life.



let me get this straight. are you saying is that the guy is so fat he can't go to meetings or do his job and that everyone was covering for him in the past? its very odd to me that on a site such as this where people are so against stereotyping the health of each individual fat person that he would even have to fight this battle on this forum. gee!


----------



## butch (Jun 18, 2011)

superodalisque said:


> let me get this straight. are you saying is that the guy is so fat he can't go to meetings or do his job and that everyone was covering for him in the past? its very odd to me that on a site such as this where people are so against stereotyping the health of each individual fat person that he would even have to fight this battle on this forum. gee!



huh? My statement has nothing to do with Carstens, but with your claim that people with jobs like the head of the IMF can't be in 'bad health' and get away with it. I merely pointed out an example of one person with a job more powerful than that of IMF head who is widely believed to have had alzheimers during part of their term as president, thus showing that people can be in 'bad health' however one defines it and still be in positions of power, especially if it benefits other powerful people for that person to be in that job.

I made no claim equating fatness with ill health, so please re-read my post.


----------



## superodalisque (Jun 18, 2011)

butch said:


> huh? My statement has nothing to do with Carstens, but with your claim that people with jobs like the head of the IMF can't be in 'bad health' and get away with it. I merely pointed out an example of one person with a job more powerful than that of IMF head who is widely believed to have had alzheimers during part of their term as president, thus showing that people can be in 'bad health' however one defines it and still be in positions of power, especially if it benefits other powerful people for that person to be in that job.
> 
> I made no claim equating fatness with ill health, so please re-read my post.



i understand what you're saying but having Alzheimer's is very different from basic physical fitness so maybe that's not the exact comparison you were looking for. back in the eighties it was much harder to diagnose since they hadn't identified the proteins associated with it. its also difficult to diagnose since many very bright people who get it are often able to hide it for a long time except for from people who are extremely close to them. i was just trying to figure out how you were equating the two since they are so very different.

the issue with Carstens is whether he can even do the job period--if he is physically fit enough to even meet the schedule. that's extremely different from Alzheimer's since physically there is nothing wrong with the physical fitness of those who have it. that's much easier to cover up than someone who might just collapse at a meeting or walking down the sidewalk somewhere--which is what they are talking about. 

you can have someone more mentally fit fill in your gaps but its impossible to have someone go to your meetings and make all of the necessary appearances over extended periods of time for you if you are in delicate health. someone is going to notice your frailty. something is going to give. there will be circumstance a person cannot avoid and cannot hide.

in this case your argument looked like:

Ronald Reagan hid Alzheimer's (an illness)
Carsten is fat (also an illness)
an illness means you are physically unfit
Therefore : Carsten can hide being physically unfit

there are too many problems with that argument it assumes. a few are:

1. being fat is a disease or an illness. 

2. all fat people must be physically unfit

3.you can't have a disease and be 
otherwise physically fit.

i just think its not a good idea to be equating fat people with sick people because it is not the same and we have to stop making the very same assumptions that fat prejudiced people make.


----------



## superodalisque (Jun 18, 2011)

superodalisque said:


> i understand what you're saying but having Alzheimer's is very different from basic physical fitness so maybe that's not the exact comparison you were looking for. back in the eighties it was much harder to diagnose since they hadn't identified the proteins associated with it. its also difficult to diagnose since many very bright people who get it are often able to hide it for a long time except for from people who are extremely close to them. i was just trying to figure out how you were equating the two since they are so very different.
> 
> the issue with Carstens is whether he can even do the job period--if he is physically fit enough to even meet the schedule. that's extremely different from Alzheimer's since physically there is nothing wrong with the physical fitness of those who have it. that's much easier to cover up than someone who might just collapse at a meeting or walking down the sidewalk somewhere--which is what they are talking about.
> 
> ...



added: what i thought we were all commenting on was the subject of this thread, which was how being fat should effect Carstens chances. i definitely wasn't talking about the issue of being fit in a vacuum as it applies to everyone with an illness since being fat is not an illness or a definite that someone is unfit for a position.


----------



## butch (Jun 19, 2011)

sorry, not following you, since we're working under two different rules of discussion. You're welcome to infer that i was talking about fat, even though it was not explicitly said, even as I was clear that I was adressing one point in your argument that was presented in a more global way then you're now claiming. I didn't realize that there were such strict rules about commenting on ideas in this thread, and that if anyone writes anything in here, it has to be about fat and Carstens. My mistake! I'll go back and read the by-laws about proper Dimensions Message Board Discussion Rules.

As an instructor who teaches in the realm in which you just tried to teach me a thing or two, let me say that I disagree with you. Not worth derailing the thread (since, according to your rules, we must find a way to tie that back to Carstens and fat anyway), but please be aware that I was unable to follow your logic very much, and while I don't presume to tell you anything about art, please don't lecture me on writing an argument. Thanks.


----------



## superodalisque (Jun 19, 2011)

butch said:


> sorry, not following you, since we're working under two different rules of discussion. You're welcome to infer that i was talking about fat, even though it was not explicitly said, even as I was clear that I was adressing one point in your argument that was presented in a more global way then you're now claiming. I didn't realize that there were such strict rules about commenting on ideas in this thread, and that if anyone writes anything in here, it has to be about fat and Carstens. My mistake! I'll go back and read the by-laws about proper Dimensions Message Board Discussion Rules.
> 
> As an instructor who teaches in the realm in which you just tried to teach me a thing or two, let me say that I disagree with you. Not worth derailing the thread (since, according to your rules, we must find a way to tie that back to Carstens and fat anyway), but please be aware that I was unable to follow your logic very much, and while I don't presume to tell you anything about art, please don't lecture me on writing an argument. Thanks.



nice dodge but no dice. the discussion was about Carsten being too fat for the the job. is he or isn't he?


my answer to that is Carsten is not Ronald Reagan. he does not have Alzheimer's. he is just fat.

i'm not trying to control the argument. just trying to make some sense out of what you said and its meaning to the subject at hand. its a good point though. maybe we shouldn't be meandering all over the place when we have an actual subject to discuss. that's why i asked specifically if you were talking about Carsten and then gave a reminder about who we were discussing and why and what your argument actually means to a fat man's case. after all the op did pose that question. i'm sure the argument you posed is the same as many who would want him out just because of his size. i doubt if there is anything wrong with sharpening our arguments to oppose people who think they can look at a fat person and be so sure they are disabled instead of agreeing with and progressing those arguments.

it would be like someone talking about a case where someone questions whether a professional gay educator with a spectacular record should be a teacher and bringing up same sex child molesters. one has nothing to do with the other. its just prejudicial drivel. a gay person would be remiss if they did not point out that prejudice no matter how it might have been meant. we all know how it comes across. it sullies the reputation of someone who has already proven themselves perfectly capable just because of his/her orientation.


----------



## superodalisque (Jun 19, 2011)

PS: the only rules i was operating under were the rules of logic


----------



## SanDiega (Jun 19, 2011)

mcbeth said:


> Here is an article that asks the question about whether due to his "morbid obesity" (geez, that phrase is so horrible), Agustin Carstens should not be considered for the position of IMF chief since it's such a demanding job and potentially his "energy level" and "health" may not be up for it.
> 
> In general I do think that people should do jobs they are equipped for and able to do well. I also think that for some fat people, their fat can contribute to having less energy to undertake strenuous tasks (this only applies to SOME fat people, of course). But whether it applies to the particular fat person in the article, well, that's pure speculation and the author is engaging in irresponsible conjecturing. (In the news media?!?!?!?  I know, shocking.)



Ugh. What a disgusting article. Sure, obesity can lead to health issues, but would the author have been raising the same questions if he was a slim man asthma or arthritis? Those could prevent him from doing his job (which I imagine is not incredibly physical) just as much.


----------



## butch (Jun 19, 2011)

superodalisque said:


> nice dodge but no dice. the discussion was about Carsten being too fat for the the job. is he or isn't he?
> 
> 
> my answer to that is Carsten is not Ronald Reagan. he does not have Alzheimer's. he is just fat.
> ...



all of this has no connection to what I said, please for the love of god go back and read what i wrote. Even if my comments can be inferred to have something to do with Carstens and fat, I never said what I thought of the fact that Reagan may have been in office with alzheimers, just a suggestion of why it may have happend. how you then decided I was claiming it is good to keep people out of office because they are fat is beyond me.


----------



## superodalisque (Jun 19, 2011)

butch said:


> all of this has no connection to what I said, please for the love of god go back and read what i wrote. Even if my comments can be inferred to have something to do with Carstens and fat, I never said what I thought of the fact that Reagan may have been in office with alzheimers, just a suggestion of why it may have happend. how you then decided I was claiming it is good to keep people out of office because they are fat is beyond me.



well, next time someone throws in disconnected talk of child molesters when people are thinking about the careers of gay people as some kind of treatise on god knows what, remember that okay. they never made an expressed connection so it doesn't impact how people think-- right?


----------



## butch (Jun 20, 2011)

superodalisque said:


> well, next time someone throws in disconnected talk of child molesters when people are thinking about the careers of gay people as some kind of treatise on god knows what, remember that okay. they never made an expressed connection so it doesn't impact how people think-- right?



I wish I could understand you, I really do, but I give up. None of what you claim I said is true, nor are any of the inferences you claim I have made, and to bring in gay issues just shows how sad this whole discussion between you and I has become. I am sorry that I have distracted this thread, and I'm sorry that you think you can shame me by bringing in gay issues after classifying me as a fat hater in your first response to my post in this thread.

If you want to continue talking, I won't be participating , because you are unwilling to engage with me. Just to be clear on what I really think about Carstens and his ability to do the job, let me share that:

Carstens is fit and able to do the job, and his fatness has nothing to do with his ability to perform the duties as head of the IMF. I would never think anything different. I do, however, find your claim that jobs like that require a complete physical in order to be considered for the job to be unconvincing, given the example of Reagan, FDR, and others. How one defines 'ill-health' is of course subjective, and I have never ever thought that fatness always equals=ill-health, and I did not say anything in this thread to imply otherwise. I have always been a vocal supporter of HAES and against job discrimination on the basis of fatness, and have been vocal of that in public, not just on the Dims message board.


----------



## Jes (Jun 21, 2011)

SanDiega said:


> but would the author have been raising the same questions if he was a slim man asthma or arthritis?



Quite possibly. There was/is endless talk about Obama being a smoker as well as negative comments about those topless photos of him at the beach a few years back. 

And as I've said, one of the reasons given that women shouldn't hold high office is still the 'PMS' defense!


----------



## Jay West Coast (Jun 21, 2011)

butch said:


> Carstens is fit and able to do the job, and his fatness has nothing to do with his ability to perform the duties as head of the IMF. I would never think anything different. I do, however, find your claim that jobs like that require a complete physical in order to be considered for the job to be unconvincing, given the example of Reagan, FDR, and others. How one defines 'ill-health' is of course subjective, and I have never ever thought that fatness always equals=ill-health, and I did not say anything in this thread to imply otherwise. I have always been a vocal supporter of HAES and against job discrimination on the basis of fatness, and have been vocal of that in public, not just on the Dims message board.



Right? Besides, in America we've had Teddy Roosevelt, Taft, Cleveland, Fillmore, Grant, Arthur, McKinley...and now look at us. Body size of its executives has clearly prevented America from ever becoming a great nation.


----------



## fat hiker (Jun 22, 2011)

superodalisque said:


> you have no idea. they are always billed as something else but thats where they are for. if the applicants don't cooperate they don't get the job. as far as trade secrets go--thats what you think.



Actually, I have a very good idea, having been "in on" the ground floor of a couple of proposals of candidates for UN-related jobs of this sort, and having done trade counselling with exporting companies....

In the end, as Agouderia says, the voting is ALWAYS political at UN bodies, and an individual's 'fitness' for the job is the number of political votes he/she can pull.


----------



## Jes (Jun 22, 2011)

Jay West Coast said:


> Right? Besides, in America we've had Teddy Roosevelt, Taft, Cleveland, Fillmore, Grant, Arthur, McKinley...and now look at us. Body size of its executives has clearly prevented America from ever becoming a great nation.



Uhmm... you're going back 100 years, baby. I'm not saying your data isn't right, but 30-year-old data isn't exactly relevant in 2011.


----------



## agouderia (Jun 28, 2011)

Christine Lagarde was unanimously nominated new managing director of the IMF.

So a conservative, teetotaling, vegetarian Frenchwoman who doesn't color her hair and speaks American English (an indeed in itself very unusual combination) was as avantgardistic as the IMF with it's transatlantic majority was willing to get.

It looks like the monetary world was not yet ready for a SSBHM from an emerging market.


----------

