# Georgia vs Fat Kids



## bigmac (Jan 6, 2012)

So what do you guys think about Georgia's fat kid add campaign?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...rk-by-telling-fat-kids-to-stop-being-fat.html

This paragraph from the Daily Beast article seems particularly poignant:

_First, theres overwhelming evidence that fat children are already perfectly and painfully aware of this fact (Ironically, the Strong4Lifes ads are themselves based on the premise that fat kids should stop being fat, in part, because fat kids are treated badly for being fat. Again, its unclear just why the people behind this campaign think fat children are in need of this particular piece of information, given that its already transmitted to them countless times every day)._


----------



## Webmaster (Jan 6, 2012)

Here's another article on the topic: Are health ads targeting 'fat kids' too much? 

Personally, I think many fat kids are singled out, excluded, and bullied enough as is. They certainly know they are fat, and those ads are in many ways legitimizing the prejudice. In fact, running those ads is a bit like institutionalized bullying.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Jan 6, 2012)

The ads are clearly aimed at parents/caregivers, not at kids and as such I wouldn't call it bullying.

Are they provocative? Sure. But they're intended to be. If there are 14 year olds with diabetes that is in fact a problem. As I've said repreatedly, I think children should be left out of discussions of SA. The ads are intended to provoke adults into taking better care of their children, not to shame or harass the kids themselves.


----------



## Webmaster (Jan 6, 2012)

LoveBHMS said:


> The ads are clearly aimed at parents/caregivers, not at kids and as such I wouldn't call it bullying.
> 
> Are they provocative? Sure. But they're intended to be. If there are 14 year olds with diabetes that is in fact a problem. As I've said repreatedly, I think children should be left out of discussions of SA. The ads are intended to provoke adults into taking better care of their children, not to shame or harass the kids themselves.



They may be targeted at adults, but the kids see them as well. As do the bullies.


----------



## Lamia (Jan 6, 2012)

LoveBHMS said:


> The ads are clearly aimed at parents/caregivers, not at kids and as such I wouldn't call it bullying.
> 
> Are they provocative? Sure. But they're intended to be. If there are 14 year olds with diabetes that is in fact a problem. As I've said repreatedly, I think children should be left out of discussions of SA. The ads are intended to provoke adults into taking better care of their children, not to shame or harass the kids themselves.



Unless you're a kid in school and some kid says "You're a fat kid just like in that ad hey doesn't he/she look like that fatty on the billboard?" etc. Then yeah it's not bullying....It just gives bullies more ammo. 

My dad harassed me constantly about my weight. He tried shaming me, yelling at me, degrading me....guess what it just made me eat more and made me eat more just to spite him. 

This sort of ad campaign is offensive VERY offensive and doesn't help or offer any help other than trying to condemn parents, but it's ok in this social climate to bash fat people. I am just worried about how far this is going to go.


----------



## Paquito (Jan 7, 2012)

LoveBHMS said:


> The ads are clearly aimed at parents/caregivers, not at kids and as such I wouldn't call it bullying.
> 
> Are they provocative? Sure. But they're intended to be. If there are 14 year olds with diabetes that is in fact a problem. As I've said repreatedly, I think children should be left out of discussions of SA. The ads are intended to provoke adults into taking better care of their children, not to shame or harass the kids themselves.



While the ads may be intended to be aimed at caregivers, how could a fat kid not feel targeted in this situation? I mean a kid isn't going to look at these billboards/commercials and go "oh, this is just meant for my parents and isn't a reflection on me personally." I would certainly feel like I was being targeted and shamed by the ads (hell, I do feel that way and I'm not even the subject).


----------



## bigmac (Jan 7, 2012)

LoveBHMS said:


> ... The ads are intended to provoke adults into taking better care of their children, not to shame or harass the kids themselves.



Right -- keep believing that.

Its only going to provoke some parents to join in the bullying.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Jan 7, 2012)

bigmac said:


> Right -- keep believing that.
> 
> Its only going to provoke some parents to join in the bullying.



Well and even if their intention was not to bully and belittle children, the reality is that having those images out there just perpetuates the same stereotypes. Those can (and likely will be) used to harass kids who are fat. There must be better ways to impress upon parents the importance of healthy food and promoting activity in your kids, rather than shaming the very people you're theoretically trying to help.


----------



## mithrandirjn (Jan 7, 2012)

This is a complicated issue, but right on the surface I'm definitely not comfortable with the imagery that you _know_ kids are going to see, too. That isn't helping anything.

I'm all for fighting childhood obesity: kids don't have a lot of control over their diets nor do they get to dictate how much time they get for physical activity, so the idea of a kid becoming obese and staying healthy at the same time is very, very remote and unrealistic. Parents need to be educated, schools need to do what's right by the kids' collective health, towns need to provide parks and playgrounds, etc. etc. etc. 

The sad reality is that some parents do, indeed, need to be "scared straight" about the health of their children, and there are a lot of ways to do that effectively. Frankly, saying "your kid will become an incredibly easy target for bullies" isn't a bad message; *obviously that does not mean you tolerate bullying or don't try to stop it at it's source*, but let's be realistic, we can fight bullying until the cows come home but it'll never be stamped out entirely. Kids are kids, and they can often be very cruel to one another, no matter what parents do to prevent it, and bullying can lead to a lifetime of emotional and psychological issues, from minor to major ones.

The big issue I have is depicting an overweight kid and trying to use that imagery to, I guess "gross out" the parents? That's pretty messed up.


----------



## EMH1701 (Jan 7, 2012)

I am someone who has struggled with depression issues for a lot of my life, and a lot of was due to bullying. Much of it was due also to having a mother who treated me like crap because I was never perfect enough for her, and she was an ultra-perfectionist. 

These ads will not help anyone, they will only make life worse and fat kids will be bullied even more. People will only abuse their kids more psychologically, they will not change. 

What kids of all sizes need is support & comfort from their parents. Ramping up the hatred and bigotry toward them will NOT help anyone.


----------



## Sweet Tooth (Jan 7, 2012)

The pressure from my family to lose weight had a lot to do with them wanting me to avoid the bullying and hatred of others. Ironically, people can become what they are trying to avoid, to some extent, although most of my family had genuinely good hearts about the subject even if the execution was poorly done.

I worry more about the publicized "This kid is not okay!" sort of campaign that allows other children to feel justified in "helping" their classmates "better" themselves through negativity and even cruelty. One needs respect and love where they're at based on inherent value as a human being, and then that security can allow them to make the changes they see fit to make _if they so choose_ even if those changes have nothing to do with body size.

On another note, I believe that kids are hostages, to some extent, to their parents' choices and influence. Parents need to take their role seriously in considering how their everyday choices impact their kids for a lifetime. But this includes parents of thin children who don't care what their kids eat or how they stay thin, because they assume their kids are fine so long as they're not fat.


----------



## squurp (Jan 7, 2012)

LoveBHMS said:


> The ads are clearly aimed at parents/caregivers, not at kids and as such I wouldn't call it bullying.
> 
> Are they provocative? Sure. But they're intended to be. If there are 14 year olds with diabetes that is in fact a problem. As I've said repreatedly, I think children should be left out of discussions of SA. The ads are intended to provoke adults into taking better care of their children, not to shame or harass the kids themselves.



The intent may be well meaning, but this does not mean the result is. this ad campaign is very harmful to children that need nurturing, not ostracization. 

If the issue is eating habits and exercise, then this should be the focus of the ads. There are just as many thin kids out there with terrible eating habits, and poor health, as obese kids. 

Furthermore, eating habits and exercise are not as tightly linked to childhood obesity as they are making it out. If a parent smoked or was around second hand cigarette smoke while pregnant, well then that child will be much more likely to be obese and have diabetes, regardless whether they eat or exercise. 

Whoever is pushing these ads, is a fat phobe that just has no good science to back them up.


----------



## MissAshley (Jan 7, 2012)

squurp said:


> If the issue is eating habits and exercise, then this should be the focus of the ads. There are just as many thin kids out there with terrible eating habits, and poor health, as obese kids.
> .



I agree. I think any program or campaign designed to encourage kids to be more active and less sedentary is great, but these are so weight focused that it takes the attention away from other health factors.


----------



## toni (Jan 8, 2012)

This makes me so angry. I was picked on for years because I was a fat kid. It was horrible. I thought I was the worst person on the planet because I was fat and it was all my fault. The kids and my family were cruel to me because of it. I could not imagine how much more painful it would have been having to see a billboard and commercials like this everyday. My heart is breaking for these poor children. 

How did this come to be? Why are they shamming children when it is the parent's fault they are fat? Use this money and try to educate families or supplement healthier food options. I don't understand why there is a movement to fight the bullying of gay children but fat kids are fair game?!?!?!


----------



## EMH1701 (Jan 8, 2012)

toni said:


> How did this come to be? Why are they shamming children when it is the parent's fault they are fat? Use this money and try to educate families or supplement healthier food options. I don't understand why there is a movement to fight the bullying of gay children but fat kids are fair game?!?!?!



But it's not always the parents' fault. DNA plays a part, and that is something many people tend to forget.

Discrimination against fat people is genetic discrimination, and I fear it will only get worse.


----------



## toni (Jan 8, 2012)

EMH1701 said:


> But it's not always the parents' fault. DNA plays a part, and that is something many people tend to forget.
> 
> Discrimination against fat people is genetic discrimination, and I fear it will only get worse.



You are right. I am still in total shock the state decided to point their finger at the children, that is the last place it belongs. Is NAAFA doing anything about this? Marilyn Wann?


----------



## FatAndProud (Jan 8, 2012)

We're a mass produced, processed, technologically-advanced nation. What do you expect? 

Things that are cheap are "bad" for us, yet that's what the 99% can afford. I think we should be campaigning big gov't and farmers. Why are we picking on the fat kids? Big gov't needs to learn to stop using HFCS's and other additives to readily available foods. Not every family can afford freshly picked produce and fancy-shmancy organic foods (that may not even be organic because they're not regulated!). 

In my opinion, it's another way gov't can make money off its citizens. Get them fat, ostracize them. It detracts attention from all the other shit the gov't is, in fact, doing to its citizens.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Jan 8, 2012)

People aren't fat due to a government conspiracy.


----------



## FatAndProud (Jan 8, 2012)

So, you're saying the gov't is innocent? Please.


----------



## Jack Secret (Jan 8, 2012)

I thought that people that made this sort of public service announcements were the kind of people that wanted to make someone with a particular difference (gay, minority, handicapped) A protected class. Not only a protected class but something that should be "celebrated" and recognized Like some diversity initiative.

Who makes the determination that fat should be celebrated or cursed and reviled?

I'm just being angry. Sorry 


bigmac said:


> So what do you guys think about Georgia's fat kid add campaign?
> 
> http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...rk-by-telling-fat-kids-to-stop-being-fat.html
> 
> ...


----------



## mithrandirjn (Jan 8, 2012)

EMH1701 said:


> But it's not always the parents' fault. DNA plays a part, and that is something many people tend to forget.
> 
> Discrimination against fat people is genetic discrimination, and I fear it will only get worse.



While certainly some kids will have bigger frames or slower metabolisms than others, it's not really a matter of genetics when a child is obese before they even hit 10 years old, barring cases where a child's physical abilities are limited. Not to say parents must bear 100% of the blame, but they have the most impact over their children's diets, activities, lifestyle habits, etc. 

People can certainly be predisposed to being big; I know I certainly have a frame that will keep me from dropping down to something like 150 pounds without doing very unhealthy things to myself, so I'm much healthier around 190-200. Childhood is a different matter, though.

That all being said, big thing I agree on: the fight for a healthier country should be aimed at big "mega farms" and the food industry as a whole, and then by extension an economy that's forced people to make unhealthy choices because they're more affordable. Parents do have to take the bulk of the responsibility to raise their children to make smart choices, but it's not a stretch to say the deck is unfairly stacked against most of them.


----------



## danbsc29630 (Jan 9, 2012)

I would expect this from the other Georgia a few years back. This seems like state sponsored bullying.


----------



## Lamia (Jan 9, 2012)

When I first saw the ad with the little girl that said "It's hard to be a little girl if you're not one".

My first thought was they were implying she wasn't a girl because she was fat. I then realized they were saying she's not a "little" girl because she's not "little". I have been thinking about why my first thought was that they were implying she wasn't a girl because she was fat. 

I think it's because for the longest time I have felt like I was non-gender specific, like furniture. 

I always felt like a girl when I was a kid, but when I moved into the tweens and into a teenager I started feeling like I didn't exist or matter. 

Society made me feel that way not my fat. Being a fat kid didn't hurt me....being a fat kid in a society that hates fat people did.


----------



## Waxwing (Jan 9, 2012)

LoveBHMS said:


> The ads are clearly aimed at parents/caregivers, not at kids and as such I wouldn't call it bullying.
> 
> Are they provocative? Sure. But they're intended to be. If there are 14 year olds with diabetes that is in fact a problem. As I've said repreatedly, I think children should be left out of discussions of SA. The ads are intended to provoke adults into taking better care of their children, not to shame or harass the kids themselves.



While I think that this was the intent, I do think that they miss the mark. It's hard to argue that we live in a society in which many parents are blind to the health problems they're causing for their children. But any PS campaign, if it involves the children themselves, will give bullies a stronger voice, whether it should or not.

Do I think that it's horrendous when I see parents shoving snickers bars and cokes down their kids' throats? Of course I do. But ignoring all the other potential reasons for obesity, as well as making the conversation all about the kids and not about the parents' behavior, is a mistake. 

I'm not sure it's easy to give any kind of a subjective answer on these. If you grew up fat you're going to feel something wholly different when you see these ads. They're hurtful even if they're not intended to be (and I don't think they are).

There has to be some better way to light a fire under the asses of parents and caregivers who are perhaps inadvertently killing their children. And it's not about obesity but about the lack of any attention to health.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Jan 9, 2012)

One thing that's getting lost here is that today's fat kids are not like the fat kids of previous generations.

For anyone who was a fat kid, think about how fat you really were. Ten pounds above most of your peers? 20? 25? Today we have 200 pound third graders. How many fat kids do you remember being around? Probably a coupld in the whole school who stood out as particularly large and maybe 2-3 per class who were heavyset. Look around today at the sheer number of fat kids there are.

And regarding health, there have been many posts on here along the lines of "I was fat despite being in every single sport and activity" or "we all ran around and played for hours after school". Today's kids are parked in front of computers and XBoxes. How many of you have said "we never had junk food" or "my parents didn't allow sugared cereals, we drank milk or water, and ate only homecooked meals." Today's kids are eating garbage, and supersized garbage at that. For everyone who remembers gym class as hellacious, think about the fact that many of today's kids don't have gym class at all, or even recess.

Twenty years ago nobody was running public service ads with 14 year olds with Type-2 Diabetes because they barely existed. Today it's epidemic.

My point being this is just different.


----------



## Shosh (Jan 9, 2012)

LoveBHMS said:


> The ads are clearly aimed at parents/caregivers, not at kids and as such I wouldn't call it bullying.
> 
> Are they provocative? Sure. But they're intended to be. If there are 14 year olds with diabetes that is in fact a problem. As I've said repreatedly, I think children should be left out of discussions of SA. The ads are intended to provoke adults into taking better care of their children, not to shame or harass the kids themselves.



I guess you were not a fat kid who was picked on at school like a lot of us were.
Kids will see those ads, and feel inadequate and bad about themselves.
Kids these days miss absolutely nothing. They are very clued in.
It is disgraceful.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Jan 9, 2012)

Society recognizes the rights of adults to make their own lifestyle choices because it's understood, or hoped, that they know and accept the consequences.

It is different for children. If we have a generation of kids who face winding up blind and with limbs amputated before they're old enough to drive, then something needs to be done.

I work in a restaurant and I see this every day. I had a kid order a steak that came with mashed potato and veggies. The steak arrived and the kid pushed the plate away stating she didn't eat vegetables and they had to be removed from her plate. I had a mother order her child a side of broccoli and when the kid said "no" the mom said to me "oh cancel that, she won't eat broccoli." I waited on a family last week where the kid who could not have been more than 7 was barely able to fit in the restaurant's booth, and his mother ordered him 2 glasses of chocolate milk, a hot dog, chicken strips and fries. Sorry but that borders on outright neglect.

If parents in Georgia are screwing up parenting to the point that 14 year olds are diabetic it's time to do something.


----------



## Lamia (Jan 9, 2012)

I am not objecting to a campaign to try to get kids to eat healthier and exercise more. I am objecting to this ad campaign as it's a horrible idea that's just going to make it harder for fat kids. 


They're not offering solutions just accusations.


----------



## Jack Secret (Jan 9, 2012)

It's definitely not a "Georgia Parents" problem. Take a look at Mississippi!



LoveBHMS said:


> If parents in Georgia are screwing up parenting to the point that 14 year olds are diabetic it's time to do something.


----------



## Donna (Jan 9, 2012)

Then shame the damn parents....don't shame children to get to their idiot parents! I believe strongly that for anyone of any age, shaming is not going to motivate or help them change their habits. Some studies have shown that weight stigmatism actually leads to increased weight. 

CHOA-Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, the agency behind this bullying campaign, is showing a clear bias. As a non-profit CHOA depends on donations. Some of those donations from bariatric surgery groups, some from diet product companies.


----------



## squurp (Jan 9, 2012)

mithrandirjn said:


> While certainly some kids will have bigger frames or slower metabolisms than others, it's not really a matter of genetics when a child is obese before they even hit 10 years old, barring cases where a child's physical abilities are limited. Not to say parents must bear 100% of the blame, but they have the most impact over their children's diets, activities, lifestyle habits, etc.
> 
> People can certainly be predisposed to being big; I know I certainly have a frame that will keep me from dropping down to something like 150 pounds without doing very unhealthy things to myself, so I'm much healthier around 190-200. Childhood is a different matter, though.
> 
> That all being said, big thing I agree on: the fight for a healthier country should be aimed at big "mega farms" and the food industry as a whole, and then by extension an economy that's forced people to make unhealthy choices because they're more affordable. Parents do have to take the bulk of the responsibility to raise their children to make smart choices, but it's not a stretch to say the deck is unfairly stacked against most of them.



Search this site for my others posts related to this. Obesity, even in children is a complex interaction between diet, exercise, psychological issues, genetics, epigenetics, and bacterial milieu (recent article just came out supporting this!) If, by age 10, a child is overweight or obese, no doubt there are serious issues, but unless the entire picture is addressed, it will be of little help. Still, While a child may be obese, good eating habits and exercise can be encouraged. In all likelihood, this will not result in significant weight loss (some, maybe), but it can help a child be healthy. THat's right, exercise is and diet are a far better indicator of healthy than weight. In addition to that, by addressing the child's needs as far as love, social outlets, sense of belonging, one can begin to address psychological causes for weight gain, and this campaign just does the total opposite.

A child may be overweight, but they are still human, and should be treated with the appropriate dignity and respect.


----------



## danbsc29630 (Jan 9, 2012)

I saw one of these posters at a Marta Station a month ago. I felt belittled, I felt humiliated, I felt singled out. I felt like a failure. 

Fu*k you Georgia.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Jan 9, 2012)

squurp said:


> A child may be overweight, but they are still human, and should be treated with the appropriate dignity and respect.



Absolutely. Not only are the ads disrespectful and harmful, but I can't see how they could be in any way helpful in accomplishing the stated goal: improving the health of young kids. Has shaming EVER worked? Is it EVER appropriate with kids?

If you must shame someone, shame the parents. But a picture of a fat kid only shames that fat kid -- and other fat kids.


----------



## imfree (Jan 9, 2012)

Miss Vickie said:


> Absolutely. Not only are the ads disrespectful and harmful, but I can't see how they could be in any way helpful in accomplishing the stated goal: improving the health of young kids. Has shaming EVER worked? Is it EVER appropriate with kids?
> 
> If you must shame someone, shame the parents. But a picture of a fat kid only shames that fat kid -- and other fat kids.



Not that shaming anyone really works, one would think those ads should be showing, pointing out, and shaming parents' ignorant and negligent behavior instead of showing fat kids who already know they're fat and sure as hell don't want more ammo for the bullies to shoot at them with.


----------



## Blackhawk2293 (Jan 10, 2012)

LoveBHMS said:


> If parents in Georgia are screwing up parenting to the point that 14 year olds are diabetic it's time to do something.



Juvenile diabetes is a little more complex than this. I had a friend at school who had it and he wasn't even close to being overweight. People too easily forget that genetics can be a factor in diabetes and also forget that there is more than 1 type of it too.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Jan 10, 2012)

Blackhawk2293 said:


> Juvenile diabetes is a little more complex than this. I had a friend at school who had it and he wasn't even close to being overweight. People too easily forget that genetics can be a factor in diabetes and also forget that there is more than 1 type of it too.



It's more than obvious that in this context, the ads refer to Type 2 or adult onset diabetes. Juvenile (Type 1) is what you'd be born with and wouldn't be related to lifestyle. The current epidemic is Type 2, which a generation ago you rarely if ever saw in children and certainly not in 14 year olds such as depicted in the ad.

If people want to keep on sticking their collective heads in the sand and insisting that every time the medical community suggests it might be less than ideal, healthwise for 8 year olds to weigh 200 pounds, that it's just "fat hatred" then go ahead. Is there bigotry? Sure. But when 14 year olds are being diagnosed with diseases that used to be the exclusive province of 40 year olds, there's something wrong.

The State of GA and other public health entities aren't worried over aesthetics, they're worried about children's health.


----------



## Donna (Jan 10, 2012)

LoveBHMS said:


> It's more than obvious that in this context, the ads refer to Type 2 or adult onset diabetes. Juvenile (Type 1) is what you'd be born with and wouldn't be related to lifestyle. The current epidemic is Type 2, which a generation ago you rarely if ever saw in children and certainly not in 14 year olds such as depicted in the ad.
> 
> If people want to keep on sticking their collective heads in the sand and insisting that every time the medical community suggests it might be less than ideal, healthwise for 8 year olds to weigh 200 pounds, that it's just "fat hatred" then go ahead. Is there bigotry? Sure. But when 14 year olds are being diagnosed with diseases that used to be the exclusive province of 40 year olds, there's something wrong.
> 
> The State of GA and other public health entities aren't worried over aesthetics, they're worried about children's health.



Perhaps you are the one with your head stuck somewhere? The contention is not the goal behind these ads-to address the growing issues of childhood obesity. The contention is the method being used. What part of " Some studies have shown that weight stigmatism actually leads to increased weight" is tripping you up? 

if CHOA had chosen to show fat kids (or kids of all sizes) being active and eating right, I highly doubt we would be discussing it here.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Jan 10, 2012)

Given the content of the ads (like a mother saying she thought her daughter was just thick and that she didn't think eating junk food was a big deal) I'm guessing the problem they're adressing is not kids eating junk or not exercising, but rather parents not seeing a problem. If they promoted healthy diet and exercise to a market who didn't see anything wrong with their kids' lifestyles, how effective would it be. It wouldn't make sense to promote a solution if the target audience didn't see a problem.

I'm not familiar with the organization that made the ads, but isn't it possible this is some sort of "phase 1" of a larger initiative? In other words first make sure the parents realize the kids are in danger and then follow that with promoting healthy eating and exercising.


----------



## Webmaster (Jan 10, 2012)

LoveBHMS said:


> If people want to keep on sticking their collective heads in the sand ...



Good thing you don't have a fat child.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Jan 10, 2012)

LoveBHMS said:


> It's more than obvious that in this context, the ads refer to Type 2 or adult onset diabetes. Juvenile (Type 1) is what you'd be born with and wouldn't be related to lifestyle. The current epidemic is Type 2, which a generation ago you rarely if ever saw in children and certainly not in 14 year olds such as depicted in the ad.
> 
> If people want to keep on sticking their collective heads in the sand and insisting that every time the medical community suggests it might be less than ideal, healthwise for 8 year olds to weigh 200 pounds, that it's just "fat hatred" then go ahead. Is there bigotry? Sure. But when 14 year olds are being diagnosed with diseases that used to be the exclusive province of 40 year olds, there's something wrong.
> 
> The State of GA and other public health entities aren't worried over aesthetics, they're worried about children's health.



Just to be clear, you're not born with Type I diabetes, the kind which used to be called Juvenile Diabetes. It's considered autoimmune in nature, where the body's immune system attacks the cells of the pancreas and destroys them, rendering it incapable of making insulin. Type II diabetes is also acquired, though from a burning out of the pancreas, considered to be a result of poor diet and genetics. It used to be considered "adult onset" because it was never seen in children; however, because of a host of factors -- likely including obesity -- we are seeing more and more Type II diabetes in children as their bodies become insulin resistant, which leads to increased production of insulin, which leads to an early death for the pancreas, but to a different mechanism.

Also to be clear, my issue isn't at all with Georgia's public health department being concerned about children's health, their poor diets and the fact that far too many kids are carrying far too much weight for their size. I see that here, kids with metabolic syndrome before the age of ten. My issue is that I don't think the ads are effective, and go about shaming the very people (kids) they're purportedly trying to help.


----------



## Dr. Feelgood (Jan 10, 2012)

Miss Vickie said:


> My issue is that I don't think the ads are effective, and go about shaming the very people (kids) they're purportedly trying to help.



Shaming is a traditional American method for enforcing conformity: the Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay Colony had formal processes for shaming individuals and families who deviated from what the elders considered proper behavior. The appeal of shaming does not lie in its effectiveness but in serving as a means of relieving stress for the shamer. In a guilt-ridden society, shaming someone else lets the shamer occupy the (relatively) high moral ground for a moment, as in "I may be fat, but I'm not as fat as so-and-so!" The amount of controversy raised by the Georgia billboards gives me hope that our society is becoming more willing to consider the effectiveness of positive reinforcement as a method of changing behavior.


----------



## Russell Williams (Jan 10, 2012)

LoveBHMS said:


> Given the content of the ads (like a mother saying she thought her daughter was just thick and that she didn't think eating junk food was a big deal) I'm guessing the problem they're adressing is not kids eating junk or not exercising, but rather parents not seeing a problem. If they promoted healthy diet and exercise to a market who didn't see anything wrong with their kids' lifestyles, how effective would it be. It wouldn't make sense to promote a solution if the target audience didn't see a problem.
> 
> .



when I was a member of the local Board of Education and there was a little bit of discussion about the possibility of sending home notes to parents of fat children to tell the parents that their children were fat I suggested that, since there is a lot of discrimination and stereotyping of black people that we might also sent home to parents of black children a short letter explaining that black children are often discriminated against and that we wanted to let them know that their child was black in case they wanted to do things that would make their child look more like a white child. After that comment I did not hear any more discussion about sending home notes to parents of fat children telling them that their children were fat.


----------



## Russell Williams (Jan 10, 2012)

I find it interesting that the southern conservative states that talk most about state's rights also tend to have strong feelings about how individuals should conduct their lives and that the state has the right to interfere in the lives of people whom it considers unacceptable. An example follows:

" People sterilized against their will under a discredited North Carolina state program should each be paid $50,000, a task force voted Tuesday, marking the first time a state has moved to compensate victims of a once-common public health practice called eugenics."

Of course at the time it was probably argued that sterilizing people would improve their lives and protect society from the costs of raising them.

Now a different state has decided that fat people are so unacceptable that, for their own good, they must be turned into thin people.

" the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:"
" So last year, Childrens Healthcare of Atlanta started running an aggressive ad to raise awareness of what childhood obesity actually looks like, and what it means for kids. More from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

Using tools such as television commercials and billboards late this year, the campaign has offered stark black-and-white images of overweight children sharing bold and often uncomfortable messages. In one, a child named Bobby sadly asks his obese mother, Mom, why am I fat? His mother simply sighs heavily and the commercial fades out."


It intrigues me that one of the arguments in favor of making fat people thin is that fat people get teased a lot and have more trouble getting jobs. It could be argued that the teasing and the discrimination should be stopped. No one argues anymore, as far as I know, that black people could use hair straightener's, skin lighteners, and any other products or procedures which would make them look more like the dominant population of the United States.

At the very minimum there should be some evidence that the money spent on this program will produce the desired result which, I assume, is thin children. It is quite possible that the money spent on this program will do nothing, or cause thin children to feel justified in even more teasing a fat children, and/or cause fat children to withdrawal even more from social interaction and stay closer to books, games, and food.

Russell Williams


----------



## KHayes666 (Jan 10, 2012)

LoveBHMS said:


> One thing that's getting lost here is that today's fat kids are not like the fat kids of previous generations.
> 
> For anyone who was a fat kid, think about how fat you really were. Ten pounds above most of your peers? 20? 25? Today we have 200 pound third graders. How many fat kids do you remember being around? Probably a coupld in the whole school who stood out as particularly large and maybe 2-3 per class who were heavyset. Look around today at the sheer number of fat kids there are.
> 
> ...



This ^^

I can name all the fat kids in my classes from grades 1 through 5 on one hand and still have some fingers left over. This was from 1993-96 which of course means 15 years ago.

Nowadays with teenaged parents that don't know what the hell they're doing, advanced video games that has kids in front of their tv's for days at a time rather than an hour or two and millions of parents who work two jobs because of this miserable economy....kids are getting absolutely no exercise.

THAT'S the difference between 2012 and 1912, 1992 or whatever year you want. In some cases like the parents working 2 full time jobs to pay the rent, there's really not much they can do to get kids off their asses to go out and play. Meanwhile other parents who let the tv and video games be the parent while they're off getting their nails done or having a drink with the guys, that's why the fat kids of my generation (93-96) were overweight but still active and children of today are morbidly obese, carrying type-2 diabetes and sleeping with oxygen masks over their faces.

I drive by a certain playground everyday at 3 pm when I come home from my day job and the place is damn near deserted every time, that place was loaded when I was in elementary school. Who's fault is that? Oh yeah I forgot....can't let kids walk themselves anywhere anymore right? Too many predators right? So now kids can't walk anywhere because their awful, neurotic parents won't let them out of their sight but their too lazy to take their kids to a park themselves.

I've ranted long enough. The point is the kids of today get zero exercise and something really has to be done. There's a difference in "fat kids" and morbidly obese children that can barely waddle and need oxygen to sleep. I'm not saying put the kids in fat camps or nonsense like that but the parents need to get off their own lazy asses to get their kids off their lazy asses.


----------



## bigmac (Jan 10, 2012)

Russell Williams said:


> when I was a member of the local Board of Education and there was a little bit of discussion about the possibility of sending home notes to parents of fat children to tell the parents that their children were fat I suggested that, since there is a lot of discrimination and stereotyping of black people that we might also sent home to parents of black children a short letter explaining that black children are often discriminated against and that we wanted to let them know that their child was black in case they wanted to do things that would make their child look more like a white child. After that comment I did not hear any more discussion about sending home notes to parents of fat children telling them that their children were fat.



Excellent post!!!

I'm thinking its not a coincidence that this add campaign is from a deep south state. Its no secret that obesity rates are higher in poor and ethnic communities. Looks like this could be just another way for the dominant culture to assert its supposed superiority.


----------



## Fat Brian (Jan 10, 2012)

As a former fat kid it didn't matter how much I played outside or what I ate, I was fat. Some of these posts about how fat kids need to go outside or how they're lazy and eat too much sound like the same things said about fat adults. That they don't do enough or try hard enough to be thin. I really would have hoped that those old stereotypes wouldn't have been brought here.


----------



## imfree (Jan 10, 2012)

Some here, are free-thinkers who see the light, others here are dimmers who brought the old stereotypes with them. Let light abound.


----------



## Blackhawk2293 (Jan 10, 2012)

LoveBHMS said:


> It's more than obvious that in this context, the ads refer to Type 2 or adult onset diabetes. Juvenile (Type 1) is what you'd be born with and wouldn't be related to lifestyle. The current epidemic is Type 2, which a generation ago you rarely if ever saw in children and certainly not in 14 year olds such as depicted in the ad.
> 
> If people want to keep on sticking their collective heads in the sand and insisting that every time the medical community suggests it might be less than ideal, healthwise for 8 year olds to weigh 200 pounds, that it's just "fat hatred" then go ahead. Is there bigotry? Sure. But when 14 year olds are being diagnosed with diseases that used to be the exclusive province of 40 year olds, there's something wrong.
> 
> The State of GA and other public health entities aren't worried over aesthetics, they're worried about children's health.



My arguement isn't about aesthetics or the health goal. It is about using shaming (which is a bullying tactic) as a method of providing "incentive". I can tell you right now that it is a psychologically damaging way of approaching a problem and as much as you want to say "it is aimed at the adults", it is indirectly aimed at the kids. 

When a campaign is aimed at parents, their children will ask why. When an action is taken against the parents by a government agency, the children always take it as if they have done something wrong rather than their parents. I worked enough child protection cases to have heard that question over and over again from kids ranging between 6 and 16 because they cannot help but wonder if it is their fault. The other factor that comes into play here is that not every parent is protective of their child, if they get shamed there is a very real possibility that they will take it out on the kids and in turn leave that child in an unsupportive family environment. On top of that, since this would legitimize shaming they'd also be subject to it at their school. So now you could potentially have a child with no support at home and no support at school. How many BBWs and BHMs on here have come from families where they had conflict with their own families about their size? I don't know the number, but I've seen a fair few people mention those kind of issues previously on here. In fact, someone mentioned it in this very thread!

My point is that "well intentioned" policies does not necessarily mean they will be effective and the state of Georgia clearly has not thought this policy through properly and not thought about all the potential consequences emotionally and psychologically for the children.


----------



## Paquito (Jan 11, 2012)

Criticizing this particular ad campaign =/= willful ignorance of children's health. I'd rather see positive promotion of healthier habits than negative fat shaming, that's all.


----------



## mithrandirjn (Jan 11, 2012)

Russell Williams said:


> when I was a member of the local Board of Education and there was a little bit of discussion about the possibility of sending home notes to parents of fat children to tell the parents that their children were fat I suggested that, since there is a lot of discrimination and stereotyping of black people that we might also sent home to parents of black children a short letter explaining that black children are often discriminated against and that we wanted to let them know that their child was black in case they wanted to do things that would make their child look more like a white child. After that comment I did not hear any more discussion about sending home notes to parents of fat children telling them that their children were fat.



What were you even arguing?

Parents don't control their child's skin tone. You can't change it, you can't alter it, etc.

Parents DO have a lot of control over the health of their children, which is something they CAN change and/or improve. 

Sending notes home about unhealthy children is a way of telling parents "we have concerns about your child's health, and here's things that can be done to help him/her"...sending notes home about being black has _nothing_ to do with that.

Not to say bullying in either case would be justified, but I have no idea what point you were making. If the notes said "your kid being fat will lead to them being bullied, and we won't stop it", then yes, your point would be spot on, but no school would ever say that.


----------



## Lamia (Jan 11, 2012)

I am all for healthy eating and parents feeding their kids healthy meals, but this campaign sucks and is wrong. The campaign is the issue here not whether kids should be fat or not, or why kids or fat etc.


----------



## D_A_Bunny (Jan 11, 2012)

Perhaps one of the many reasons that we don't see as many children outside playing freely is that the parents are unavailable to watch them and don't want them kidnapped. Because let's face it folks, fat in kids is going up and so is kidnapped, raped and murdered going up.

This fat kid problem is not just from one cause. It is from many causes. That is not the point of this discussion as I see it. The point is the means by which the state of Georgia is attempting to create ways for children to lose excess weight.

As far as I see it, it is a major FAIL. They are only creating shame. When I watch those videos, the young girl in me feels ashamed and scared and starts to cry. I am by no means motivated to listen to anything they have to say because I only feel targeted.

How about instead they show a video of some kids together and one of them starts throwing a ball around and encourages ALL the children to join. You know, let's play and move around. Or perhaps they could encourage children to help make the dinner. That way they have a vested interest in the meal and would be more likely to eat whatever healthier choices are being made.

Let's not forget that it is easier both in time and money to feed children quick premade food that is not only higher in calories, but salt and refined sugars.

This is something that we should get involved with to steer them to the right direction. Just because they claim to have the right intentions does not mean that they are doing a good job of it.

There is just so much more to this, but it becomes overwhelming to think about sometimes. And as the FATTEST girl in my grade, every freaking year, these ads would have driven me over the edge.


----------



## Fat Brian (Jan 11, 2012)

I do want to point out that this is a private group running this campaign, not the state government of Georgia. Children's Healthcare of Atlanta is an "advocacy" group run by two pediatric hospitals.


----------



## Blackhawk2293 (Jan 11, 2012)

mithrandirjn said:


> What were you even arguing?
> 
> Parents don't control their child's skin tone. You can't change it, you can't alter it, etc.
> 
> ...



I understand it perfectly and especially when Russell stated that his argument actually forced people to consider the implications of such an action.

I was bullied because of my color and in my experience schools are quite impotent in dealing with bullying and if the kid/kids doing the bullying have parents that are connected to the funding of the school, they basically get a blank cheque to bully who they want. In the long run it doesn't actually matter why you are being bullied (whether it's because you're of a different color, or fat, or gay, or you like Science Fiction or whatever) because generally it has no bearing on what kind of action (or lack of action) the school takes.

So really, they might as well write "your kid being fat will lead to them being bullied, and we won't stop it" on the note.


----------



## mithrandirjn (Jan 11, 2012)

Blackhawk2293 said:


> I understand it perfectly and especially when Russell stated that his argument actually forced people to consider the implications of such an action.
> 
> I was bullied because of my color and in my experience schools are quite impotent in dealing with bullying and if the kid/kids doing the bullying have parents that are connected to the funding of the school, they basically get a blank cheque to bully who they want. In the long run it doesn't actually matter why you are being bullied (whether it's because you're of a different color, or fat, or gay, or you like Science Fiction or whatever) because generally it has no bearing on what kind of action (or lack of action) the school takes.
> 
> So really, they might as well write "your kid being fat will lead to them being bullied, and we won't stop it" on the note.



But that's not _at all_ what was said.

It was a note to parents about the social dangers of your kid being overweight; schools can't prevent all bullying, first off, and that's not even going into the health dangers of childhood obesity. As somebody who was a target of bullies at a young age due to my weight, I can definitely speak to the social and emotional problems that bullying cause to grow over time, and wish my parents had taken more steps to help me avoid it.

Equating that with something unalterable, such as skin color, makes no point whatsoever, again, unless the school is saying "we're not going to try to stop the bullying", which isn't the case, _anywhere_ (having been a teacher, schools definitely work to stop bullying, but you can't be everywhere at once and control what kids say to each other). There's nothing wrong with suggesting to parents that they should take steps to both improve their child's health, both physical as well as emotional.

Again, *parents can play a huge role in their child's weight, they can't do a thing about their skin color, hair or eye color, voice, etc.* The point is just wrong.

Like I said, I obviously want schools and other places to teach against bullying, to take any kind of bullying or discrimination seriously, to make it clear that insulting a fellow student over things like weight isn't acceptable, but I also want them to recognize that they can't prevent all bullying, and thus need to work with parents. While I think this particular campaign being talked about in this thread is wrong-headed and makes the mistake of leaping immediately to shame instead of education and solutions, I'm also kind of unnerved by how a few (certainly not most) seem to be talking as if we're all helpless to do anything against childhood obesity.


----------



## squurp (Jan 11, 2012)

Blackhawk2293 said:


> Juvenile diabetes is a little more complex than this. I had a friend at school who had it and he wasn't even close to being overweight. People too easily forget that genetics can be a factor in diabetes and also forget that there is more than 1 type of it too.




Actually, we are talking two different types of diabetes. Juvenile diabetes actually has little to do with diet as you mention. Some children get type II diabetes as children, a disease normally for adults. 

While this is a concern, placing the blame solely on weight is pretty misplaced - see other posts. Diet/exercise are more closely linked factors.


----------



## squurp (Jan 11, 2012)

Miss Vickie said:


> Just to be clear, you're not born with Type I diabetes, the kind which used to be called Juvenile Diabetes. It's considered autoimmune in nature, where the body's immune system attacks the cells of the pancreas and destroys them, rendering it incapable of making insulin. Type II diabetes is also acquired, though from a burning out of the pancreas, considered to be a result of poor diet and genetics. It used to be considered "adult onset" because it was never seen in children; however, because of a host of factors -- likely including obesity -- we are seeing more and more Type II diabetes in children as their bodies become insulin resistant, which leads to increased production of insulin, which leads to an early death for the pancreas, but to a different mechanism.
> 
> Also to be clear, my issue isn't at all with Georgia's public health department being concerned about children's health, their poor diets and the fact that far too many kids are carrying far too much weight for their size. I see that here, kids with metabolic syndrome before the age of ten. My issue is that I don't think the ads are effective, and go about shaming the very people (kids) they're purportedly trying to help.



Many people are born with Type I Diabetes. Some are not. It is suspected by some to be autoimmune related, others believe it is a nervous system disorder. In most cases, the pancreas is capable of producing insulin, and doesn't. there's been some discussion of using a pacemaker to stimulate the pancreas with some experimental success. Research has a ways to go in all areas here.


----------



## bigmac (Jan 11, 2012)

D_A_Bunny said:


> Perhaps one of the many reasons that we don't see as many children outside playing freely is that the parents are unavailable to watch them and don't want them kidnapped. Because let's face it folks, fat in kids is going up and *so is kidnapped, raped and murdered going up.*



I agree with the rest of your post but this is just not true. The streets and parks of our towns and cities are the safest they've been in 50 years. Violent crime is at an all time low.




D_A_Bunny said:


> There is just so much more to this, but it becomes overwhelming to think about sometimes. And as the FATTEST girl in my grade, every freaking year, these ads would have driven me over the edge.



Hear you. In elementary school, every fall, the school nurse would line everyone up to be weighed and measured. Weights and heights were shouted out to the clipboard holding school secretary -- whenever one of us fat kids got near the scare the room went quite -- everyone wanted to know who was the "fattest" (i.e. heaviest) -- it was always me. A lot of chubby girls were glad to have me in their class.


----------



## CastingPearls (Jan 11, 2012)

So let me get this straight---personal experiences by former fat kids are discounted as either bullshit or rare occurrences but observatory anecdotes and comparisons about OTHER fat kids not exercising and eating to excess are more valid by the same people dismissing the former? Really?

As science and specifically medicine is catching up with metabolic disorders BECAUSE there are so many 'blanks' when it comes to obesity and there's a fuckload of profit in it the fatter this nation gets, more and more people are being diagnosed with lipedema,and adiposa dolorosa to name two formerly 'rare diseases' and it's becoming evident that it's much more prevalent than those who think 'fat = lazy slob who won't stop eating' think it is. My personal experiences, some of which have specifically been mentioned here and in other threads of this type, although having been dismissed, have been borne out by a formal diagnosis. 

There is no doubt that corn syrup and video games and empty playgrounds play a huge role but I see a disingenuous bias ironically on a website devoted to fat admirers and the objects of their desire. What I'm reading here (and on similar threads) is the same 'concern' shown in these ads--a belief or assumption that fat is a moral failing or character flaw (laziness, gluttony, any other deadly sins we can fit in here so we can condemn with impunity?) only here those people use the same argument and still want to fuck the objects of their desire, their disgust and their hatred.


----------



## Fat Brian (Jan 12, 2012)

CastingPearls said:


> So let me get this straight---still want to fuck the objects of their desire, their disgust and their hatred.



Of all the times to not be able to rep you. I could not agree more.


----------



## Blackhawk2293 (Jan 12, 2012)

mithrandirjn said:


> But that's not _at all_ what was said.
> 
> It was a note to parents about the social dangers of your kid being overweight; schools can't prevent all bullying, first off, and that's not even going into the health dangers of childhood obesity. As somebody who was a target of bullies at a young age due to my weight, I can definitely speak to the social and emotional problems that bullying cause to grow over time, and wish my parents had taken more steps to help me avoid it.
> 
> ...



No I agree with you that there is nothing wrong with assisting parents in an education type approach, but shaming is definitely not an educational approach... unless you want to teach them that "bullying is acceptable as long as it is done to certain types of people".

I don't know what your parents are like, to me they sound like they were supportive of you. My family on the other hand, I'd get into huge fights with my parents if any letters came from my school voicing "concerns" of any kind. At school I was the only dark skinned kid in the class and that's why people picked fights with me. But what was happening to me at school was irrelevant to my parents because the fact that I wasn't bringing home straight As every semester was bringing disgrace to the family. I actually enjoyed going to school and getting into fights than being at home because at least at school I had friends who actually did back me up and who's parents actually cared more than mine about what was going on at school for me. Once again I'll also point out there have been other Dim members who have stated that they had unsupportive/hostile parents of varying scales. Be careful in assuming that every parent is going to be supportive of their child if they receive a letter like this. Maybe I have worked Child Protection too long to believe that there are more bad parents than good ones, but that doesn't mean the bad ones aren't out there.

That being said, I would say that education about obesity and managing children's health needs to be combined with lessons in tolerance and non-blaming.


----------



## KHayes666 (Jan 12, 2012)

Blackhawk2293 said:


> No I agree with you that there is nothing wrong with assisting parents in an education type approach, but shaming is definitely not an educational approach... unless you want to teach them that "bullying is acceptable as long as it is done to certain types of people".
> 
> I don't know what your parents are like, to me they sound like they were supportive of you. My family on the other hand, I'd get into huge fights with my parents if any letters came from my school voicing "concerns" of any kind. At school I was the only dark skinned kid in the class and that's why people picked fights with me. But what was happening to me at school was irrelevant to my parents because the fact that I wasn't bringing home straight As every semester was bringing disgrace to the family. I actually enjoyed going to school and getting into fights than being at home because at least at school I had friends who actually did back me up and who's parents actually cared more than mine about what was going on at school for me. Once again I'll also point out there have been other Dim members who have stated that they had unsupportive/hostile parents of varying scales. Be careful in assuming that every parent is going to be supportive of their child if they receive a letter like this. Maybe I have worked Child Protection too long to believe that there are more bad parents than good ones, but that doesn't mean the bad ones aren't out there.
> 
> *That being said, I would say that education about obesity and managing children's health needs to be combined with lessons in tolerance and non-blaming.*



I agree. Lessons need to be taught but not through bullying. Making a child feel horrible about themselves is not the answer even if the cause is the right thing to do.

One of my fiancee's good friends is trying to trim down her overweight teenaged daughter but refuses to make fun of her or force her to do anything. In my eyes I see nothing wrong with this because there's no bullying going on but an honest attempt at a healthier lifestyle. THAT'S the way it should be, not by force.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Jan 12, 2012)

Fat Brian said:


> Of all the times to not be able to rep you. I could not agree more.



Concern over kids getting adult onset diabetes and 200 poind third graders don't equate with hatred and disgust. Neither does believing that humans have some control over their size. Are there a lot of variables? Yes. But lifestyles choices play a part.

I don't understand why it's like the third rail of SA to believe anything other than that nobody has anything to do with what size they are.

There is also a difference between size acceptance and behaviour acceptance. If an adult chooses to be sedentary and eat ice cream, that's his or her own choice. As a society though we recognize that older people are in charge of making those choices for kids. Regarding the ads, what good would it do to run ads saying "an awesome way to spend your time is running around playing soccer or riding a bike" when the kid would rather play a computer game. What good would it do to promote eating grilled chicken and carrots when the parents see nothing wrong with a kid scarfing down chips and Pepsi.


----------



## Blackhawk2293 (Jan 12, 2012)

LoveBHMS said:


> Concern over kids getting adult onset diabetes and 200 poind third graders don't equate with hatred and disgust. Neither does believing that humans have some control over their size. Are there a lot of variables? Yes. But lifestyles choices play a part.
> 
> I don't understand why it's like the third rail of SA to believe anything other than that nobody has anything to do with what size they are.
> 
> There is also a difference between size acceptance and behaviour acceptance. If an adult chooses to be sedentary and eat ice cream, that's his or her own choice. As a society though we recognize that older people are in charge of making those choices for kids. Regarding the ads, what good would it do to run ads saying "an awesome way to spend your time is running around playing soccer or riding a bike" when the kid would rather play a computer game. What good would it do to promote eating grilled chicken and carrots when the parents see nothing wrong with a kid scarfing down chips and Pepsi.




What good would it do to promote exercise and sport? A positive approach that promotes good physical health and might actually help kids feel less socially disconnected by interacting with their peers and not being shamed because of their size? An approach that encourages them to turn off the TV or the video game or whatever keeps them in the house?

Ok call me stupid but that sounds a lot better than shaming them.


----------



## Blackhawk2293 (Jan 12, 2012)

KHayes666 said:


> I agree. Lessons need to be taught but not through bullying. Making a child feel horrible about themselves is not the answer even if the cause is the right thing to do.
> 
> One of my fiancee's good friends is trying to trim down her overweight teenaged daughter but refuses to make fun of her or force her to do anything. In my eyes I see nothing wrong with this because there's no bullying going on but an honest attempt at a healthier lifestyle. THAT'S the way it should be, not by force.



Exactly! When I worked in child protection one of the kids that I worked with had gone up to over 200 lbs and he was about 5'3" and 10 years old... because his mother had Munchausen by proxy and had overmedicated him with antipsychotics and socially isolated him (including not sending him to school). The extended family and medical services that I placed him with immediately began to get him off the medication, change his diet to what they encourage their own family to eat, and encouraged him to go to school and get into different types of activities. At first it was difficult for him because of his size and they had to keep an eye on his mental health as he went off all meds so they kept it to light activities at first, small odd jobs around their farm and looking after the younger cousins. As he got used to it and began to enjoy it he was encouraged to take on a little more and he now playing soccer for the school, playing basketball as well, he actually learned to ride a bike. This kid was highly resistant in the beginning but instead of resorting to shaming and forcing, these extended family of his used supportive approaches that adpated to his interests. He has lost over 60 lbs in the 12 months I worked with him, he has grown taller in that time too so it eventually levelled out.


----------



## Russell Williams (Jan 12, 2012)

To say to the child and the child's parents that these are some lifestyle changes that will improve your child's health is one thing but to say to the child and the child's parents if you could change your body in this way you will then not be teased anymore is a very different thing.

People have argued that black children cannot change, however their parents certainly can take steps to make their children look more like white children and it does not have to be an expensive process like those apparently used by Michael Jackson.

My position is that if a child is being teased because he or she is fat or because he or she is black or for some other reason related to physical characteristics the goal should not be to change the child's body but rather to do what can be done to end the teasing.

I would tell my fifth graders that they should never tease people with different physical characteristics. . Their physical characteristics harm you in no way. I would further tell them that if they wished tease people because of their differences go to the local prison and tease the people in prison because they exhibited social behavior that got them put into jail. Having said that at the beginning of the year, for the rest of the year any time I heard teasing I could point out to the child doing the teasing that the physical characteristics of the person they were teasing did not hurt anybody and why didn't they ask their parents to take them down to the local prison so they could stand outside the prison and tease people, who in some cases, had hurt and/or severely inconvenienced people.


----------



## Lamia (Jan 12, 2012)

CastingPearls said:


> So let me get this straight---personal experiences by former fat kids are discounted as either bullshit or rare occurrences but observatory anecdotes and comparisons about OTHER fat kids not exercising and eating to excess are more valid by the same people dismissing the former? Really?
> 
> As science and specifically medicine is catching up with metabolic disorders BECAUSE there are so many 'blanks' when it comes to obesity and there's a fuckload of profit in it the fatter this nation gets, more and more people are being diagnosed with lipedema,and adiposa dolorosa to name two formerly 'rare diseases' and it's becoming evident that it's much more prevalent than those who think 'fat = lazy slob who won't stop eating' think it is. My personal experiences, some of which have specifically been mentioned here and in other threads of this type, although having been dismissed, have been borne out by a formal diagnosis.
> 
> There is no doubt that corn syrup and video games and empty playgrounds play a huge role but I see a disingenuous bias ironically on a website devoted to fat admirers and the objects of their desire. What I'm reading here (and on similar threads) is the same 'concern' shown in these ads--a belief or assumption that fat is a moral failing or character flaw (laziness, gluttony, any other deadly sins we can fit in here so we can condemn with impunity?) only here those people use the same argument and still want to fuck the objects of their desire, their disgust and their hatred.



Damn it I just repped you in another thread, for something else wise and inciteful you said. You rock! This is what I have been thinking this entire time, but was unable to verbalize.


----------



## butch (Jan 12, 2012)

CastingPearls said:


> So let me get this straight---personal experiences by former fat kids are discounted as either bullshit or rare occurrences but observatory anecdotes and comparisons about OTHER fat kids not exercising and eating to excess are more valid by the same people dismissing the former? Really?
> 
> As science and specifically medicine is catching up with metabolic disorders BECAUSE there are so many 'blanks' when it comes to obesity and there's a fuckload of profit in it the fatter this nation gets, more and more people are being diagnosed with lipedema,and adiposa dolorosa to name two formerly 'rare diseases' and it's becoming evident that it's much more prevalent than those who think 'fat = lazy slob who won't stop eating' think it is. My personal experiences, some of which have specifically been mentioned here and in other threads of this type, although having been dismissed, have been borne out by a formal diagnosis.
> 
> There is no doubt that corn syrup and video games and empty playgrounds play a huge role but I see a disingenuous bias ironically on a website devoted to fat admirers and the objects of their desire. What I'm reading here (and on similar threads) is the same 'concern' shown in these ads--a belief or assumption that fat is a moral failing or character flaw (laziness, gluttony, any other deadly sins we can fit in here so we can condemn with impunity?) only here those people use the same argument and still want to fuck the objects of their desire, their disgust and their hatred.



Well, remember, any outcast group is not only lazy and a slob, but dumb, too, so I'm guessing all the non-fat people who think their opinion is more correct than ours simply thinks we're too dumb to understand how the world works. You know how there is 'mansplainin,' I guess there's also 'thinsplainin,' and we should be grateful that the thins deign to educate us on our lives as former fat kids and current fat adults.


----------



## Lamia (Jan 12, 2012)

butch said:


> Well, remember, any outcast group is not only lazy and a slob, but dumb, too, so I'm guessing all the non-fat people who think their opinion is more correct than ours simply thinks we're too dumb to understand how the world works. You know how there is 'mansplainin,' I guess there's also 'thinsplainin,' and we should be grateful that the thins deign to educate us on our lives as former fat kids and current fat adults.



Just repped you as well for a different inciteful post in another thread. 

lol I'm sorry I can't hear the splainin over the sound of these 50 lbs of cheetos I am eating and rolling in because I am such an out of control fatty. *runs into the walls and bouncing off and breaking various pieces of furniture* duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh what's a !#@[email protected]#!ing carrot stick?? My mom never taught me I wish the state had intervened and everything would have been so much better!!!!


----------



## Fat Brian (Jan 12, 2012)

LoveBHMS said:


> Concern over kids...a kid scarfing down chips and Pepsi.



My problem is that some are making the assumption that just because a child is fat they must be ill. Yes, SOME children suffer health issues due to extreme weight but they are not the totality of fat kids. There was nothing wrong physically with me, there still isn't, and I'm about a cheeseburger shy of 400 pounds. I was JUST FAT, thats all. I can't stand it when people automatically assume that all fat people are disease ridden social lepers. If a child is fat but otherwise healthy I don't see why it is an imperative to make them conform to a socially acceptable size. I don't believe in making a problem where there isn't one, especially when teaching self love and understanding of peoples differences is far more important then a lesson in dietary theory.


----------



## cinnamitch (Jan 12, 2012)

CastingPearls said:


> So let me get this straight---personal experiences by former fat kids are discounted as either bullshit or rare occurrences but observatory anecdotes and comparisons about OTHER fat kids not exercising and eating to excess are more valid by the same people dismissing the former? Really?
> 
> As science and specifically medicine is catching up with metabolic disorders BECAUSE there are so many 'blanks' when it comes to obesity and there's a fuckload of profit in it the fatter this nation gets, more and more people are being diagnosed with lipedema,and adiposa dolorosa to name two formerly 'rare diseases' and it's becoming evident that it's much more prevalent than those who think 'fat = lazy slob who won't stop eating' think it is. My personal experiences, some of which have specifically been mentioned here and in other threads of this type, although having been dismissed, have been borne out by a formal diagnosis.
> 
> There is no doubt that corn syrup and video games and empty playgrounds play a huge role but I see a disingenuous bias ironically on a website devoted to fat admirers and the objects of their desire. What I'm reading here (and on similar threads) is the same 'concern' shown in these ads--a belief or assumption that fat is a moral failing or character flaw (laziness, gluttony, any other deadly sins we can fit in here so we can condemn with impunity?) only here those people use the same argument and still want to fuck the objects of their desire, their disgust and their hatred.



Well yeah cause you know it's all about the fat kids. What some of these admirers of da fat haven't thought of was that many of us were the really fat kids in school, so yeah this hits close to home. I suppose they think we just suddenly inflated to this cushioned body the day we turned 18.:doh:


----------



## KHayes666 (Jan 12, 2012)

Fat Brian said:


> My problem is that some are making the assumption that just because a child is fat they must be ill. Yes, SOME children suffer health issues due to extreme weight but they are not the totality of fat kids. There was nothing wrong physically with me, there still isn't, and I'm about a cheeseburger shy of 400 pounds. I was JUST FAT, thats all. I can't stand it when people automatically assume that all fat people are disease ridden social lepers. If a child is fat but otherwise healthy I don't see why it is an imperative to make them conform to a socially acceptable size. I don't believe in making a problem where there isn't one, especially when teaching self love and understanding of peoples differences is far more important then a lesson in dietary theory.



She's not assuming all fat kids are fat because they eat crap, she's saying some of the parents are showing no real parenting skills if they continue to their let their child that IS fat from eating crap...continue to eat crap.

One of my good friends is also a cheeseburger shy of 400 and she doesn't eat that much either. We're not saying that all fat kids are sloppy and needs to lose weight, we're saying the ones that are morbidly obese and can barely move with a bevy of health problems are the product of extremely lousy parenting. That's when the lessons need to be learned, but not by force.


----------



## CastingPearls (Jan 12, 2012)

The ad campaign impacts ALL fat kids. It implies in its imperfect simplicity that FAT = BAD. Psychologically, children are wired to think that when something is 'wrong' it's their fault. *I* did. Regardless of whose fault it is, who is exercising, who is making unhealthy food choices, the campaign makes no distinctions; it paints all fat kids with broad strokes and practically invites abusers and bullies to justify their behavior against ALL FAT CHILDREN. Why is that so difficult to understand? No fat children regardless of the whys and wherefores should be subjected to that. Argue that the motivation behind it is well-intended if you like, but don't say it's going to benefit that one 200 lb. diabetic 9-year-old when 50 kids who are active and eat right (etc. etc. ad nauseum) and are chubby are going to get knocked around and discriminated against too.


----------



## bigmac (Jan 12, 2012)

LoveBHMS said:


> ...
> 
> Regarding the ads, what good would it do to run ads saying "an awesome way to spend your time is running around playing soccer or riding a bike" when the kid would rather play a computer game. What good would it do to promote eating grilled chicken and carrots when the parents see nothing wrong with a kid scarfing down chips and Pepsi.




*And just how are these ads going to change any of this? * Don't you think 200lb kids know they're fat already? Don't you think their parents know too?

*These adds do nothing positive!!! * They only officially condone shaming fat kids and their parents. Just how the hell is that going to help anyone?


----------



## Blackhawk2293 (Jan 12, 2012)

Fat Brian said:


> My problem is that some are making the assumption that just because a child is fat they must be ill. Yes, SOME children suffer health issues due to extreme weight but they are not the totality of fat kids. There was nothing wrong physically with me, there still isn't, and I'm about a cheeseburger shy of 400 pounds. I was JUST FAT, thats all. I can't stand it when people automatically assume that all fat people are disease ridden social lepers. If a child is fat but otherwise healthy I don't see why it is an imperative to make them conform to a socially acceptable size. I don't believe in making a problem where there isn't one, especially when teaching self love and understanding of peoples differences is far more important then a lesson in dietary theory.



Teach people to self love? But the rampant consumerism driven society we all live in is against that sort of thing. If people were self confident, they wouldn't need to buy the useless ab building equipment, the damaging diet pill, the $200 shoes that was made in a 3rd world country by a 5 year old child who's only pay is to get beaten less than normal etc.

You heretic! Burn you at the stake for promoting people to have self love and not want to buy the illusion of it. LMAO!!


----------



## imfree (Jan 12, 2012)

Someone else's fantasy.

He can't be a man.


----------



## Fat Brian (Jan 12, 2012)

KHayes666 said:


> She's not assuming all fat kids are fat because they eat crap, she's saying some of the parents are showing no real parenting skills if they continue to their let their child that IS fat from eating crap...continue to eat crap.
> 
> One of my good friends is also a cheeseburger shy of 400 and she doesn't eat that much either. We're not saying that all fat kids are sloppy and needs to lose weight, we're saying the ones that are morbidly obese and can barely move with a bevy of health problems are the product of extremely lousy parenting. That's when the lessons need to be learned, but not by force.



I just don't play the good fatty/bad fatty game. A fat person who eats "right" is not more virtuous than a fat person who eats "crap". If a kid weighs 200 pounds and eats McDonalds everyday but doesn't have any health issues is there a problem here? I'm not denying there are poor parents in the world but every fat kid doesn't belong to some. I'm just really surprised so many self professed FAs have such a mainstream view of childhood fatness.


----------



## imfree (Jan 12, 2012)

Maybe the whole thing, I mean in a multitude of different contexts, is misplaced or dysfunctionally-assigned guilt.


----------



## KHayes666 (Jan 13, 2012)

Fat Brian said:


> I just don't play the good fatty/bad fatty game. A fat person who eats "right" is not more virtuous than a fat person who eats "crap". If a kid weighs 200 pounds and eats McDonalds everyday but doesn't have any health issues is there a problem here? I'm not denying there are poor parents in the world but every fat kid doesn't belong to some. *I'm just really surprised so many self professed FAs have such a mainstream view of childhood fatness.*



I never said every fat kid belongs to poor parents, you're not reading the point. The point I was making are the parents of children with legitimate health problems need to get off their asses and do something. I never said every fat child is unhealthy either so there's no generalization going on here.

The bolded part is another topic altogether. Just because I like fat chicks doesn't mean I have my head in the clouds to the fact that men, women and children struggle with obesity. While I'm not as vicious about it as people in the mainstream are, you'd have to be a total fool to not see where morbid obesity in children is wrong. I'm not talking about overweight kids either, I'm talking ones you see on TV weighing 300-400 pounds and the like.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Jan 13, 2012)

This thread is precisely why children and children's health are issues that don't belong on this site.

There have always been fat kids. There has not always been an epidemic of adult onset diabetes. The kids of today are *not* active and are *not* eating healthfully. Kids' lifestyles are the responsibility of parents. End of story.

And as I posted above, I work in a restaurant. I'm not looking at fat kids and assuming they're eating junk food. I'm watching parents order their kids meals of buttered noodles with a side of fries and a glass of whole milk and I know for a fact they're eating poorly.

Kevin and I both went to public elementary schools in Massachusetts. We are 17 years apart in age, so call that approximately a "generation". When I was in school we had daily recess where we were all just kicked out the door for an hour and expected to play on jungle gyms or play tetherball or foursquare. We also had gym class where we played a specific sport like basketball or track and field. Kevin and I were talking about this and he told me by the time he was in school there was no more recess and no gym, so the only kids who got any exercise during the day were athletes who played varsity or JV sports. This is empirical evidence of a problem with how kids are growing up.


----------



## bigmac (Jan 13, 2012)

LoveBHMS said:


> This thread is precisely why children and children's health are issues that don't belong on this site.
> 
> There have always been fat kids. There has not always been an epidemic of adult onset diabetes. The kids of today are *not* active and are *not* eating healthfully. Kids' lifestyles are the responsibility of parents. End of story.
> 
> ...



I'm seeing a contradiction. You're blaming parents but then acknowledge things beyond the control of individual parents -- like whether or not schools have recess and gym.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Jan 13, 2012)

I was pointing out a correlation between lifestyle and health, as well as pointing out that peoples' personal experiences as fat kids are different from what goes on today. And yes it is parents responsibility to ensure their kids are healthy.

I've noticed of all the former fat kids on here, nobody has indicated any health or mobility issues they suffered. Bullying is terrible but it's not a detriment to physical health (beyond stress or suicide.) I haven't seen a single post from anyone who couldn't walk to school, play sports, or who became diabetic at 14.


----------



## mithrandirjn (Jan 13, 2012)

Fat Brian said:


> I just don't play the good fatty/bad fatty game. A fat person who eats "right" is not more virtuous than a fat person who eats "crap". *If a kid weighs 200 pounds and eats McDonalds everyday but doesn't have any health issues is there a problem here?* I'm not denying there are poor parents in the world but every fat kid doesn't belong to some. I'm just really surprised so many self professed FAs have such a mainstream view of childhood fatness.



Bolded part: you just described a person that doesn't exist. Saying "but the child isn't experiencing health problems now" is very short sighted; habits developed and ingrained during childhood carry over to adulthood, where many illnesses, such as diabetes and many others, start to manifest. 

I don't think a single person here said they want fat kids bullied, ostracized, or allowed to suffer slings and arrows that other kids don't have to deal with. I was bullied for my weight all through elementary school and at times in high school before I was fully grown up, I know what it feels like, and have a vivid memory of a medical person testing us at school straight out telling me "you're fat". I can remember how upset my mom was when I told her; not because she pointed out that I might have a weight issue, but because it was the kind of "shame" tactic most of us here are against.

It is getting kind of old to read things like "are you really a FA if you don't agree with <whatever>?", though. I've said in a number of threads that I'm not comfortable with people willfully harming their health, whether that be by smoking, excessive risk taking, driving without a seatbelt on, and, yes, gaining without regard for well-being. I've said in these threads that it's a moral, _not_ legal, issue for me, yet immediately there are some cries of "so you want to deny these people healthcare?". Of course not (I want universal healthcare), but that's the knee-jerk reaction that seems to come out. It also isn't me condemning others; it's my own stance, and to expect all others to agree would be silly.

Here it seems the knee-jerk reaction is to think some of us want to see big kids bullied or shamed when the reality is that some here simply have a different perspective on childhood health issues. Like I said, I don't like this ad campaign, I think it does more harm than good. However, I also fully support campaigns that seek to get kids more active and eating better. As many keep saying, kids aren't in much control of their diets or play time; it's not as if 99.9% of children are going to gain weight while having a doctor's supervision, or gain in anything resembling a healthy manner. It is entirely possible to be healthy-at-any-size, but it's pretty damn difficult when you're a child and don't get to choose what goes in your lunchbox, on your dinner plate, or when you get to go outside to play.

To put it a lot shorter: I think we're all in agreement here that we don't want kids bullied or emotionally hurt, and would rather see ad campaigns working against bullying and teaching more positive, pro-active measures. But I don't think we're all in agreement when it comes to overall health issues, especially where it concerns children. Saying FA's should all believe one way or another really isn't the way to argue it.


----------



## Fat Brian (Jan 13, 2012)

It seems like some who purport to be here because they like fat people seem to have a problem with kids being fat. You say my scenario is impossible but I beg to differ as I was that child, if no health issues are present must we fix a fat child? For the life of me I just can't see the problem with leaving a fat kid alone if they are healthy, I don't think being fat is a problem that must be addressed or bear dire consequences.


----------



## KHayes666 (Jan 13, 2012)

Fat Brian said:


> It seems like some who purport to be here because they like fat people seem to have a problem with kids being fat. You say my scenario is impossible but I beg to differ as I was that child, if no health issues are present must we fix a fat child? For the life of me I just can't see the problem with leaving a fat kid alone if they are healthy, I don't think being fat is a problem that must be addressed or bear dire consequences.



You're missing the point. Nobody is targeting healthy fat kids on this thread. We're talking about the ones with really serious problems. What part of that do you not understand?

We're not talking about the 100-150 pound children or the 200 pound middle schoolers....we're talking about the 300 pound children and 400 pound middle schoolers. Its a big difference whether you like to admit it or not.


----------



## Mathias (Jan 13, 2012)

KHayes666 said:


> You're missing the point. Nobody is targeting healthy fat kids on this thread. We're talking about the ones with really serious problems. What part of that do you not understand?
> 
> We're not talking about the 100-150 pound children or the 200 pound middle schoolers....we're talking about the 300 pound children and 400 pound middle schoolers. Its a big difference whether you like to admit it or not.



Regardless, you're still talking about children who will be shamed because of this. It's not like some billboard is going to make them say, "Hey Mom and Dad, I'm really fat and didn't notice until I saw this billboard outside!" They DO know because they live it every day.


----------



## EMH1701 (Jan 13, 2012)

Mathias said:


> Regardless, you're still talking about children who will be shamed because of this. It's not like some billboard is going to make them say, "Hey Mom and Dad, I'm really fat and didn't notice until I saw this billboard outside!" They DO know because they live it every day.



I have to agree. As a former fat kid, I know that fat kids know they are fat. If someone is being bullied to the point where they want to commit suicide, and they can't get any kind of emotional support from their parents, teachers, or other kids their age, guess where they are going to get it from? 

Hint: It's not other human beings, because the kids will have gotten the idea from the billboards (& other mass media) that other human beings hate fat people & will never support fat people, ever.

These billboards are not going to help. They will only cause more problems and heartache for the kids involved. What needs to happen is that kids of all sizes, including fat kids, get support & comfort from those around them instead of psychologically abusing them.


----------



## Donna (Jan 13, 2012)

Perhaps some of us will find the following exchange between Dr Pattie Thomas and Dr Mary Beth Asbury interesting. The entire interview can be found here. 



> DR. THOMAS: There has been a great deal of controversy regarding a public service advertising campaign being sponsored by the Children's Healthcare of Atlanta's Strong4Life program. Specifically, the ads are using the images of larger kids supposedly asking their parents to watch their weight and what they eat because being a fat kid is so tough. What implications of your research would address this campaign and controversy?
> 
> DR. ASBURY: These ads are very upsetting. However, the irony of this whole situation is that by making these ads, Georgia may actually encourage some people to gain weight - the exact opposite of what they desire. I say this because in my dissertation, I examined whether individuals have a weight identity, a form of social identity that is similar to the identity we feel about our age, our sex, our ethnicity, our disability status, etc. My study found that weight is indeed a form of identity. How this relates to the Georgia ads is that social identity research tells us that whenever we feel our identity is threatened, we hold tight to that identity. Thus, we will often enact behaviors that show that we belong to that group. For example, if people tell me that "fat is bad," and I identify myself as "fat," I will do what I can to protect that identity, even when I am not happy with that identity. Thus, I will enact the behaviors of a "fat" person more overtly to show others I am standing firm in who I am. If Georgia wants people to enact healthy behaviors, the answer does not lie in shaming people, for it will only make people rebel against the idea.


----------



## squurp (Jan 13, 2012)

Fat Brian said:


> I just don't play the good fatty/bad fatty game. A fat person who eats "right" is not more virtuous than a fat person who eats "crap". If a kid weighs 200 pounds and eats McDonalds everyday but doesn't have any health issues is there a problem here? I'm not denying there are poor parents in the world but every fat kid doesn't belong to some. I'm just really surprised so many self professed FAs have such a mainstream view of childhood fatness.



SInce children do not have the foresight, attention span, or self control to make decisions fully developed, parents should be involved in making decisions that have long term impacts. In many cases, parents should be making the decisions. Relevant, to this case, if a child is eating poorly, a parent has a responsibility to remedy this, until the child is 18. Now, its gradual really, children gradually evolve into making decisions for their life. 

Secondly, science does correlate bad eating habits with poor health (though not necessarily obesity - that gets complicated). So yeah, scientifically, the diet is not the best. That being said, a better diet won't mean instant weight loss.


----------



## Fat Brian (Jan 13, 2012)

squurp said:


> SInce children do not have the foresight, attention span, or self control to make decisions fully developed, parents should be involved in making decisions that have long term impacts. In many cases, parents should be making the decisions. Relevant, to this case, if a child is eating poorly, a parent has a responsibility to remedy this, until the child is 18. Now, its gradual really, children gradually evolve into making decisions for their life.
> 
> Secondly, science does correlate bad eating habits with poor health (though not necessarily obesity - that gets complicated). So yeah, scientifically, the diet is not the best. That being said, a better diet won't mean instant weight loss.



Yes, parents are responsible for what their kids eat, especially when they are young. Even if parents do everything "right" within their means their kids could still be fat, there are several SSBBW vegans here. If the average person looked at their grocery receipt they would swear the person was thin but they aren't. Food intake, eating "right", is a very small component in a persons size, much smaller than we are lead to believe. Making sure kids eat their veggies won't make them all skinny, and I don't know why we have to.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Jan 14, 2012)

Fat Brian said:


> Yes, parents are responsible for what their kids eat, especially when they are young. Even if parents do everything "right" within their means their kids could still be fat, there are several SSBBW vegans here. If the average person looked at their grocery receipt they would swear the person was thin but they aren't. Food intake, eating "right", is a very small component in a persons size, much smaller than we are lead to believe. Making sure kids eat their veggies won't make them all skinny, and I don't know why we have to.



First off, veganism is not about weight loss, it's about ethics. Being vegan simply means not consuming animal products. Any vegan could easily consume enough potato chips, bread, Ritz crackers, and pasta with olive oil to stay super sized.

But the real issue here is we're not talking about healthy fat kids, we're talking about the kid in the ad who's a 14 year old diabetic. And also, as Khayes said, we're not talking about garden variety fat kids who are 100 or 200 pounds; we're talking about kids who are super sized in elementary school. 

Eating and moving are not the miniscule components to body size you insist they are. Are there a lot of factors beyond those? Yes. But they still matter.


----------



## bigmac (Jan 14, 2012)

EMH1701 said:


> I have to agree. As a former fat kid, I know that fat kids know they are fat. If someone is being bullied to the point where they want to commit suicide, and they can't get any kind of emotional support from their parents, teachers, or other kids their age, guess where they are going to get it from?
> 
> Hint: It's not other human beings, because the kids will have gotten the idea from the billboards (& other mass media) that other human beings hate fat people & will never support fat people, ever.
> 
> *These billboards are not going to help. They will only cause more problems and heartache for the kids involved. What needs to happen is that kids of all sizes, including fat kids, get support & comfort from those around them instead of psychologically abusing them*.



Exactly -- well said!!!


----------



## bigmac (Jan 14, 2012)

KHayes666 said:


> You're missing the point. Nobody is targeting healthy fat kids on this thread. We're talking about the ones with really serious problems. What part of that do you not understand?
> 
> We're not talking about the 100-150 pound children or the 200 pound middle schoolers....we're talking about the 300 pound children and 400 pound middle schoolers. Its a big difference whether you like to admit it or not.



Take a look at the adds. _100-150 pound children or the 200 pound middle schoolers_are exactly the group being targeted.


----------



## Mathias (Jan 14, 2012)

LoveBHMS said:


> First off, veganism is not about weight loss, it's about ethics. Being vegan simply means not consuming animal products. Any vegan could easily consume enough potato chips, bread, Ritz crackers, and pasta with olive oil to stay super sized.
> 
> But the real issue here is we're not talking about healthy fat kids, we're talking about the kid in the ad who's a 14 year old diabetic. And also, as Khayes said, we're not talking about garden variety fat kids who are 100 or 200 pounds; we're talking about kids who are super sized in elementary school.
> 
> Eating and moving are not the miniscule components to body size you insist they are. Are there a lot of factors beyond those? Yes. But they still matter.



You keep missing the point. A billboard that essentially says "EVERYONE LOOK AT THE FAT KID!" helps no one involved, kids or parents. What makes you think that they don't know they're bigger than their peers already? Yes, there's an issue when young kids is a problem, but the amount of time and money it took to make this negative campaign could have been spent on schools within the state to add exercise programs, extending the time kids spend outside during the school day and healthier lunches for them.


----------



## Fat Brian (Jan 14, 2012)

LoveBHMS said:


> First off, veganism is not about weight loss, it's about ethics. Being vegan simply means not consuming animal products. Any vegan could easily consume enough potato chips, bread, Ritz crackers, and pasta with olive oil to stay super sized.
> 
> But the real issue here is we're not talking about healthy fat kids, we're talking about the kid in the ad who's a 14 year old diabetic. And also, as Khayes said, we're not talking about garden variety fat kids who are 100 or 200 pounds; we're talking about kids who are super sized in elementary school.
> 
> Eating and moving are not the miniscule components to body size you insist they are. Are there a lot of factors beyond those? Yes. But they still matter.



I didn't say veganism is about weight loss, just that most people would assume a vegan would be thin because it fits their definition of what eating "right" is. The ads don't mention health and the kids pictured aren't the very fat kids you're talking about, they are very attainable sizes much smaller than I was at their age. The ads flat out target every fat kid regardless of what their health is.


----------



## EMH1701 (Jan 14, 2012)

Mathias said:


> You keep missing the point. A billboard that essentially says "EVERYONE LOOK AT THE FAT KID!" helps no one involved, kids or parents. What makes you think that they don't know they're bigger than their peers already? Yes, there's an issue when young kids is a problem, but the amount of time and money it took to make this negative campaign could have been spent on schools within the state to add exercise programs, extending the time kids spend outside during the school day and healthier lunches for them.



Excellent point. Too many schools have lost money due to budget cuts. What good does a billboard campaign essentially making fun of fat kids do when the schools' version of gym consists of "Okay, let's let everyone outside for 30 minutes & see what happens." Some schools don't even do that much because they can't afford to hire someone to watch the kids play outside for 30 minutes. 

Also, when schools can't afford to have organic leafy greens for kids and their main vegetables are probably potatoes, and most likely in the form of tator tot hotdish or french fries, how exactly does the govt. expect fat kids to magically become skinny just because they are being made fun of? Reality is so much fun, isn't it?


----------



## imfree (Jan 14, 2012)

EMH1701 said:


> Excellent point. Too many schools have lost money due to budget cuts. What good does a billboard campaign essentially making fun of fat kids do ...snipped...




You and Matt have said a mouthful. This program is yet another example of how little common sense our government uses and how much money they waste when they address obesity, poverty, medicine, education, or any other issue related to people.


----------



## KHayes666 (Jan 14, 2012)

Mathias said:


> You keep missing the point. A billboard that essentially says "EVERYONE LOOK AT THE FAT KID!" helps no one involved, kids or parents. What makes you think that they don't know they're bigger than their peers already? Yes, there's an issue when young kids is a problem, but the amount of time and money it took to make this negative campaign could have been spent on schools within the state to add exercise programs, extending the time kids spend outside during the school day and healthier lunches for them.



No I didn't miss that point. I already said I disagreed with the ad because I don't believe in bullying. In fact I agree that instead of putting up worthless ads they should be adding exercise programs, more recess, etc. The point I'm making is that parents who don't believe there's something wrong with their morbidly obese child needs to get their heads out of their collective asses.


----------



## one2one (Jan 15, 2012)

LoveBHMS said:


> Bullying is terrible but it's not a detriment to physical health (beyond stress or suicide.)



I find it astounding that you refuse to acknowledge that the verbal, emotional and _physical_ abuse that _is_ bullying is somehow not detrimental to the health of a child until it culminates in their death. Unfortunately, it is all too common in a thought process that makes broad based assumptions, without any medical data or specific knowledge of diet and lifestyle of any individual involved. Better to go ahead and point fingers, assign blame and discount them on even the most basic, humanitarian level, right? Because what follows is that it becomes very easy to justify abusing someone who isn't regarded with any value. That is a significant problem, and it is pervasive. In fact, there's your epidemic.

The only thing that should be captioned beneath the photo of every child on that billboard is *This is a person.* 

How about if we start there.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Jan 15, 2012)

I never said bullying wasn't harmful. I said it didn't cause physical damage the way diabetes or limited mobility do. Nobody is pro-bullying and bullying is hardly limited to fat kids. And let's be real about this, fat kids have been bullied since long before these billboards came about. I strongly doubt it would happen that school bullies were totally ignoring the fat kids until they saw a billboard reminding them to go harass them.


----------



## Sweet Tooth (Jan 15, 2012)

I happen to think bullying that leads to suicide is a pretty f-ing big detriment to someone's physical health far beyond diabetes or other health issues that may come from unhealthy choices AND genes. [There are plenty of people who get Type II pretty severely or have off the charts cholesterol or heart disease who are close to normal weight because a genetic predisposition.]

The fact is that we cannot judge someone's health from appearance, plain and simple, no matter what we see working in a restaurant or watching children in public or hearing the news reports based on "research" funded by those with agendas. We don't know what they're eating the other times when they're not in public. But assume away and judge, since that's apparently the way we're supposed to do things. 

I will be the first to say that parents have the responsibility for bring up their child in a healthy manner. I do support removal from a home in cases where there is *severe* neglect, but weight is not necessarily indicative of neglect or poor parenting. Even weight that is combined with disease may not be a sign of neglect, and it's not for anyone in the general public to think they know what's going on with that kid's body.

And let's also consider that there is research that shows there's far greater success in pro-healthy eating and movement campaigns that target all families to make small, specific changes that have an impact on health. Since when have blanket campaigns that involve shaming fat kids - or their parents - worked well in this society aside from their success in producing people with disordered eating, a sense of unworthiness, and a boatload of crappy memories of family pressure and classmate bullying?


----------



## Donna (Jan 15, 2012)

LoveBHMS said:


> I never said bullying wasn't harmful. I said it didn't cause physical damage the way diabetes or limited mobility do. Nobody is pro-bullying and bullying is hardly limited to fat kids. And let's be real about this, fat kids have been bullied since long before these billboards came about. I strongly doubt it would happen that school bullies were totally ignoring the fat kids until they saw a billboard reminding them to go harass them.



Yes, lets be real about this. Bullying does cause physical damage. Not the same kind of damage that diabetes or limited mobility can, but it does cause physical damage. The body and the mind/emotions are NOT independent of each other. Stress is a huge factor in increased weight, so it could be argued that the stress from bullying may actually contribute to additional weight gain. Plus, stress contributes to sleeplessness, fatigue and it also affects the bodys ability to control our hormones. Studies have shown that being bullied as a child/teen has lasting physical effects which are carried into adulthood. 

Yes, lets be real about this. Kids-fat and thin- have been bullied long before this ad campaign. But do you really, honestly deep down think this campaign doesnt possibly contribute to additional bullying? I know you have a bias against fat and you only enjoy it in so far as your fetish goes. But you arent so delusional as to believe that this so its always happened, so why speak against it now argument is going to fly? 

Yes lets be real about this. CHOA is a non-public, not for profit, organization funded by donations. Follow the money.a great deal of which is coming from the diet and weight loss surgery industry. Surely they have childrens best interests at heart, right?


----------



## bigmac (Jan 15, 2012)

KHayes666 said:


> No I didn't miss that point. I already said I disagreed with the ad because I don't believe in bullying. In fact I agree that instead of putting up worthless ads they should be adding exercise programs, more recess, etc. *The point I'm making is that parents who don't believe there's something wrong with their morbidly obese child needs to get their heads out of their collective asses.*




Two things:

First: Why do you believe there are such parents. Just because a child's super fat does not mean the parents haven't been trying to address the situation. Case in point; the 200 pound eight year old from Ohio was taken into custody *because* his mom took him to the doctor.

Second: Lets assume that these adds actually have the intended effect upon your hypothetical clueless parents. Then what? Is anyone going to pay for a gym membership for the kid? Anyone going to pay for a personal trainer to show the kid and family how to use the gym? Is anyone going to give the family enough money to shop at Whole Foods rather than Food Maxx? ... Didn't think so.

So the only real thing these adds do is remind fat kids and parents of fat kids that the world sees them as worthless failures.


----------



## butch (Jan 15, 2012)

Donna said:


> Yes, lets be real about this. Bullying does cause physical damage. Not the same kind of damage that diabetes or limited mobility can, but it does cause physical damage. The body and the mind/emotions are NOT independent of each other. Stress is a huge factor in increased weight, so it could be argued that the stress from bullying may actually contribute to additional weight gain. Plus, stress contributes to sleeplessness, fatigue and it also affects the bodys ability to control our hormones. Studies have shown that being bullied as a child/teen has lasting physical effects which are carried into adulthood.
> 
> Yes, lets be real about this. Kids-fat and thin- have been bullied long before this ad campaign. But do you really, honestly deep down think this campaign doesnt possibly contribute to additional bullying? I know you have a bias against fat and you only enjoy it in so far as your fetish goes. But you arent so delusional as to believe that this so its always happened, so why speak against it now argument is going to fly?
> 
> Yes lets be real about this. CHOA is a non-public, not for profit, organization funded by donations. Follow the money.a great deal of which is coming from the diet and weight loss surgery industry. Surely they have childrens best interests at heart, right?



I wasn't able to rep you, but spot on!


----------



## EMH1701 (Jan 15, 2012)

bigmac said:


> Second: Lets assume that these adds actually have the intended effect upon your hypothetical clueless parents. Then what? Is anyone going to pay for a gym membership for the kid? Anyone going to pay for a personal trainer to show the kid and family how to use the gym? Is anyone going to give the family enough money to shop at Whole Foods rather than Food Maxx? ... Didn't think so.



Money is a definite obstacle to health in a lot of situations. The govt. has gotten so bloated that they do not recognize this simple fact. America is one of the few countries in the world in which healthy foods are more expensive than processed foods. 

Cases in point: A head of iceberg lettuce can still be bought in some places for under $1.00. But a bag of fresh spinach can cost twice that much, and spinach has more nutrients than lettuce.

A frozen pizza can still be bought for under $5.00 in a lot of places, using coupons and the like. Yet if you want to make a salad from scratch using fresh veggies, it may well cost you over $5.00 to buy 3 or 4 different types of veggies. And that's not even counting healthy dressing like olive oil vinaigrette. Even if you make the dressing from scratch, the olive oil alone will cost you at least $5.00 for a bottle. Even if you buy fat free ranch, the bottle will cost between $1.50 and $2.00. So I can see why families who don't have a lot of money opt for the Mac n' Cheese or Hamburger Helper over fresh veggies. 

Heck, most newspapers don't even have coupons for fresh fruit and veggies. Perhaps that is a marketing idea worth exploring.


----------



## bigmac (Jan 15, 2012)

EMH1701 said:


> Money is a definite obstacle to health in a lot of situations.



Yes it is!!!

As I type this my three year old is munching on fresh strawberries. The small flat cost $5.00. We're fortunate enough to be able to afford this. Unfortunately, for many families fresh fruit is a luxury they can't afford.

Which brings us to the economic issue. While there are fat people of all races and socio-economic classes, in the USA obesity is much more prevalent in poor and minority populations.

It could be argued that the fat kid billboards are just another way of expressing contempt of poor folks and minorities.


----------



## squurp (Jan 15, 2012)

Fat Brian said:


> Yes, parents are responsible for what their kids eat, especially when they are young. Even if parents do everything "right" within their means their kids could still be fat, there are several SSBBW vegans here. If the average person looked at their grocery receipt they would swear the person was thin but they aren't. Food intake, eating "right", is a very small component in a persons size, much smaller than we are lead to believe. Making sure kids eat their veggies won't make them all skinny, and I don't know why we have to.



Yes, akin to what I said. I agree.


----------



## squurp (Jan 15, 2012)

LoveBHMS said:


> First off, veganism is not about weight loss, it's about ethics. Being vegan simply means not consuming animal products. Any vegan could easily consume enough potato chips, bread, Ritz crackers, and pasta with olive oil to stay super sized.
> 
> But the real issue here is we're not talking about healthy fat kids, we're talking about the kid in the ad who's a 14 year old diabetic. And also, as Khayes said, we're not talking about garden variety fat kids who are 100 or 200 pounds; we're talking about kids who are super sized in elementary school.
> 
> Eating and moving are not the miniscule components to body size you insist they are. Are there a lot of factors beyond those? Yes. But they still matter.



Iam quite sure we'll see that exposure to chemicals and other carcinogens, and perhaps antibiotics will be scientifically linked to obesity. Already this has shown remarkable relevance in mice. In twenty years, the obesity epidemic will be looked at differently. Obesity is a complex combination of genetics, epigenetics, psychological issues, bacterial gut population, diet, and exercise. In the end, diet and exercise are a small, but significant portion. 

As far as type II diabetes, exercise and diet do have an effect, but that effect has been shown to be almost completely independent of weight! There are many many people that are overweight, with no diabetes, and those that are thin, with diabetes. So, the conclusion, that obesity causes diabetes is false. It is only correlated. Cause and correlation are a big difference. 

It should be noted, women who smoke or are around secondhand smoke greatly increase the risk of their child developing type II diabetes, regardless of that child's weight.

Let's just talk about this in terms of bullying. If was walking down the street, and tripped someone, who then fell on their face, I would be arrested and charged with assault. Yet, this happens daily in schools and we hear "boys will be boys..." 

This is wrong wrong wrong. A crime is a crime regardless what age it happens. If my child is bullied, I will call the police and file charges. 

Bullying happens because people enable it with attitudes like the poster a few up. These people are implicitly guilty as well. Bullying should not ever happen. period. Georgia's campaign simply enables it more.


----------



## squurp (Jan 15, 2012)

KHayes666 said:


> No I didn't miss that point. I already said I disagreed with the ad because I don't believe in bullying. In fact I agree that instead of putting up worthless ads they should be adding exercise programs, more recess, etc. The point I'm making is that parents who don't believe there's something wrong with their morbidly obese child needs to get their heads out of their collective asses.



I believe this post shows a significant blind spot in your perceptions. Anti-bullying yes, but still not able to put yourself in other's shoes?


----------



## Mathias (Jan 15, 2012)

LoveBHMS said:


> I never said bullying wasn't harmful. I said it didn't cause physical damage the way diabetes or limited mobility do. Nobody is pro-bullying and bullying is hardly limited to fat kids. And let's be real about this, fat kids have been bullied since long before these billboards came about. I strongly doubt it would happen that school bullies were totally ignoring the fat kids until they saw a billboard reminding them to go harass them.



Forget it...


----------



## Lamia (Jan 15, 2012)

LoveBHMS said:


> I never said bullying wasn't harmful. I said it didn't cause physical damage the way diabetes or limited mobility do.
> 
> I was a very fat active kid up until my tweens bullying drove me into my house and away from the world where I then became inactive. If I had continued to swim and bike and rollerskate as I had been I would be in a lot better shape. I stopped doing that stuff and withdrew from the world. Are you so blind you can't understand that? Do you not have a clue that inactivity is mostly because people don't want to endure scrutiny? Society doesn't want you coming out of your house or into the gym until you're hot.
> 
> ...




One to One won this thread a couple of posts ago. "This is a human being"...indeed.


----------



## cinnamitch (Jan 15, 2012)

LoveBHMS said:


> I was pointing out a correlation between lifestyle and health, as well as pointing out that peoples' personal experiences as fat kids are different from what goes on today. And yes it is parents responsibility to ensure their kids are healthy.
> 
> I've noticed of all the former fat kids on here, nobody has indicated any health or mobility issues they suffered. Bullying is terrible but it's not a detriment to physical health (beyond stress or suicide.) I haven't seen a single post from anyone who couldn't walk to school, play sports, or who became diabetic at 14.



Not a detriment to physical health?
You try being a 12 year old girl puking her guts out because shes scared to be weighed in front of everyone

You can't sleep at night because you know tomorrow you have to run a mile in gym

You know no one wants to pick you for any team sports because you can't run fast enough 

You end up with ulcers because of all the stress you suffer at school from being called names and being picked on because you are the fattest kid in school.

But yeah you go on and believe what you will, I mean YOU have so much more experience living as a fat person than I do.


----------



## TexasTrouble (Jan 15, 2012)

squurp said:


> Iam quite sure we'll see that exposure to chemicals and other carcinogens, and perhaps antibiotics will be scientifically linked to obesity. Already this has shown remarkable relevance in mice. In twenty years, the obesity epidemic will be looked at differently. Obesity is a complex combination of genetics, epigenetics, psychological issues, bacterial gut population, diet, and exercise. In the end, diet and exercise are a small, but significant portion.
> 
> As far as type II diabetes, exercise and diet do have an effect, but that effect has been shown to be almost completely independent of weight! There are many many people that are overweight, with no diabetes, and those that are thin, with diabetes. So, the conclusion, that obesity causes diabetes is false. It is only correlated. Cause and correlation are a big difference.



I read this really cool book a few months ago called "Weighing In: Obesity, Food Justice, and the Limits of Capitalism" by Julie Guthman (community studies scholar). It was really fascinating and she goes into detail about how we are just now scratching the surface of examining how issues like environmental substances (like industrial and other household plastics, for example) influence humans' endocrine systems and, through that, lead to weight gains. Unfortunately, this type of research is hard to do (how can you separate out the effects of items that are all around us since birth?) and rarely funded (in part because a lot of the organizations funding this type of work are "in bed" with some of these companies producing these substances). 

Anyway, I'm not trying to derail the thread, but I had never read such a well-researched book that systematically questions a lot of the taken for granted notions about the obesity "epidemic." Also--relevant to this discussion--is the parts on the idea of "healthism" and how people who are lucky enough to be healthy (or privileged enough) often use it as a way of indicating their moral superiority, and suggest that if people just behaved "correctly" they would be thin/healthy. This focus on the individual hides a lot of structural inequalities that it would take a LOT more resources to fix than to just through up some billboards or run a commercial.


----------



## Lamia (Jan 16, 2012)

cinnamitch said:


> Not a detriment to physical health?
> You try being a 12 year old girl puking her guts out because shes scared to be weighed in front of everyone
> 
> You can't sleep at night because you know tomorrow you have to run a mile in gym
> ...



ugh weighing at school....I got lucky and the teacher was fat so he weighed me in private and everyone bitched "Why doesn't she have to weigh out here" and he said "because she's special" haha

I puked every day before high school...or just didn't go. 

I had my face slammed into a locker....

I stopped interacting with the world and retreated. 

I contemplated suicide a lot

My self-esteem was non-existant

I would get harassed on the bus to school, harassed in school, harassed on the bus ride home from school and then harassed by my father at home. None of it motivated me to lose weight it did make me write bad poetry and wear black and start feeding my hate as well as my body. 

I had a nervous breakdown at age 18 and didn't eat from Halloween until Dec 12th. I was punishing myself for being a bad fatty. There were other things going on, but I got out Dec 12th and I've been fine since. I've had a lonnngggg journey to self-acceptance. 

Dimensions helped me in that journey. I found it in 1998 best discovery I've ever made.


----------



## bigmac (Jan 17, 2012)

TexasTrouble said:


> ...
> 
> Also--relevant to this discussion--is the parts on the idea of "healthism" and how people who are *lucky enough to be healthy (or privileged enough) often use it as a way of indicating their moral superiority*, and suggest that if people just behaved "correctly" they would be thin/healthy.
> 
> ...




Yes!!! This is a very important point. A point that often goes unacknowledged. 

IMHO this type of thinking is responsible for much of the pain and injury inflicted upon fat people by the medical establishment and indeed by society at large.


----------



## LovelyLiz (Jan 17, 2012)

The only people in this thread who are at all making a case for the helpfulness of these billboards are non-fat people. The target audience for these billboards is fat people. 

Clearly it's a stellar and effective ad campaign.

(Or perhaps it is effective, but toward a different goal than what it claims on the surface.)


----------



## imfree (Jan 17, 2012)

mcbeth said:


> The only people in this thread who are at all making a case for the helpfulness of these billboards are non-fat people. The target audience for these billboards is fat people.
> 
> Clearly it's a stellar and effective ad campaign.
> 
> (Or perhaps it is effective, but toward a different goal than what it claims on the surface.)



True, one must be fat in order to know how a campaign and billboard hit you in the heart. Some people just don't understand.


----------



## Blackhawk2293 (Jan 17, 2012)

LoveBHMS said:


> I never said bullying wasn't harmful. I said it didn't cause physical damage the way diabetes or limited mobility do. Nobody is pro-bullying and bullying is hardly limited to fat kids. And let's be real about this, fat kids have been bullied since long before these billboards came about. I strongly doubt it would happen that school bullies were totally ignoring the fat kids until they saw a billboard reminding them to go harass them.



But you are minimizing an entire aspect of bullying, the fact that it does cause physical damage.

One example, a fat kid that commits suicide due to bullying? I'm pretty sure death would be classed as something that causes more physical damage than diabetes or limited mobility.

Putting aside the arguments about physiological effects of psychological and emotional bullying. Let's talk about physical assaults! Most bullying involves a physical assault of some kind at some point. Whether that is directly punching or hurting them or simply tripping them over or knocking their lunch tray out of their hand, it is still a physical assault. There were a number of fat kids at my school who were constantly physically assaulted and if you took a snapshot of their medical status back then, any doctor would have concluded that they were subject to consistent and severe physical abuse. If you want severity scale how is broken noses, internal organ damage, brain injury (just to name a few)? 

Still think bullying doesn't have the potential to damage a person physically?

That being said, I have a brilliant way to encourage fat kids to exercise more and get healthy... teach them how to fight (with weapons if you want to go all the way). You kill two birds with the one stone that way, they get plenty of exercise and they get plenty of pleasure from being able to beat the shit out of their bullies!


----------



## imfree (Jan 17, 2012)

Blackhawk2293 said:


> But you are minimizing an entire aspect of bullying, the fact that it does cause physical damage.
> 
> One example, a fat kid that commits suicide due to bullying? I'm pretty sure death would be classed as something that causes more physical damage than diabetes or limited mobility.
> 
> ...



It's way better than that because it takes out those damned bullies' intimidation abilities!

* I was a skinny electronics/science geek who was bullied quite a bit as a kid, I wonder how fucking come I got so fat, later in life?!?!?!


----------



## Blackhawk2293 (Jan 17, 2012)

imfree said:


> It's way better than that because it takes out those damned bullies' intimidation abilities!
> 
> * I was a skinny electronics/science geek who was bullied quite a bit as a kid, I wonder how fucking come I got so fat, later in life?!?!?!



Exactly! It puts intimidation into them... and if they try using other people to do their dirty work for them, you then beat the shit out of them. Even if you lose the fight, if you fight as dirty as possible, injure them as much as you can before you go down... they normally think twice about doing it again. Of course if they continually do it again you have to resort to more covert means such as setting their bag on fire, poisoning their lunch, or putting thumb tacks or nails on their chairs. 

What I used to hate more than the bullies and their friends were the ones that do nothing... or they sit back and laugh but are not actually part of the bully group. I used to take special pleasure out of beating them up because they'd laugh and get brave when I was being bullied but they were all of a sudden an "innocent bystander" when they saw my fist (or a desk in one person's case) fly their way.

Yeah I was a science "geek" at school too, and technology... and I had dark skin (well I still do, but back then I was the only one in my school).


----------



## EMH1701 (Jan 18, 2012)

Blackhawk2293 said:


> Still think bullying doesn't have the potential to damage a person physically?



I agree with you. The side effects of depression alone have been shown to damage a person physically. That's even *if* the kids don't resort to cutting or suicide. 

Schools should have no tolerance towards bullying anyone of any stripe, be they homosexual, fat, nerdy, skinny, freckled, red-haired, tall, short, blonde, brunette, whatever...really, kids are all just kids. They have enough to deal with in the process of growing up. Psychological abuse should not have to be just another part of growing up, yet society has tolerated it as such. I daresay society has tolerated bullying for too long.


----------



## CastingPearls (Jan 18, 2012)

When a person is traumatized, emotionally, mentally and psychologically, the sympathetic nervous system of the brain reacts in a flight, fight or freeze reaction and the hormones adrenaline and cortisol are released into the body. The parasympathetic nervous system is meant to counter-effect this when the brain realizes that everything is okay. The former cannot be controlled or manipulated by the individual. The latter can, partially with therapy and very generally speaking, neural pathways are rerouted. 

If an individual is so traumatized and stressed to a great degree (and it depends on the person and a variety of factors like coping mechanisms, support systems, etc.), the parasympathetic nervous system is unable to counter-effect which leaves the individual in a constant state of anxiety, often depression and with no release of the adrenaline and cortisol out of the body. 

Those hormones remain in the body in the limbic system or 'center' brain where they can be literally triggered by ANYTHING that is stressful to the individual causing anxiety, etc each time they're stressed. Again, the individual CANNOT control that. They CAN'T 'shake it off'. They can't buck up and swallow it or push it down. They think they can, and they will be told they can, and even bullied into thinking they're failures for being unable to but they're not capable--their brains, in fact, no one's brain, functions that way and those emotions and feelings will exhibit themselves in some way eventually. 

In a nutshell this means that verbal, emotional and psychological abuse, while not physical, absolutely has a physical impact on the body. It triggers an automatic brain function, releases hormones, AND those hormones, as well as stress, causes gastric illness (ulcers, for one), headaches, respiratory illness (asthmatics--when you're anxious-ever notice how you start to wheeze?) and auto-immune conditions and diseases.

There is no excuse for abuse of any kind. There is no excuse for encouraging or excusing abuse of any kind. This ad campaign addresses all fat children, and sets them up to be abused. This thread is not about how kids can get off their asses, parents can supervise them better, and how junk food is killing everyone. This thread is about an ad campaign that targets children and gives bullies a free pass.


----------



## butch (Jan 19, 2012)

Yesterday the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network came out with a new study, on the effects of bullying in K-6 classrooms in the US. GLSEN is the leading organization to deal with LGBTQ issues in children and adults, and only a few years ago did a similar study on older children. In both studies, the largest category of bullying was the category of looks and/or body size. This category is almost 3 times greater than all the other categories, including ones related to being LBGTQ. In the most recent survey, that percent is 67%. (glsen.org)

Now, I have no idea why GLSEN doesn't separate out 'body size' and 'appearance,' so there is no way to know which is more prevalent, appearance bullying not related to body size, or bullying just about body size, but my guess is, it would at least equal the percent of kids bullied for being perceived as being gay or lesbian, or looking/acting like the 'wrong' gender.

I post this because it goes well with CastingPearl's critical points about the health effects of bullying. Can you imagine if that bullying starts in 1st grade, and lasts throughout one's youth and adolescence? The amount of permanent trauma done to the neural pathways must be extensive, and it would take a lot of hard therapy work to begin to correct that. Also, science has well established the health implications of stress, and I can imagine few things more stressful for a child than bullying.

Those of us who grew up as fat kids know what media bullying looks like, and this campaign is media bullying. Why non-fat people won't at least listen to what we're saying if only to make their campaigns more effective, I really have no idea. No fat person is saying that fat children shouldn't hear messages about nutrition and exercise and how great it is to eat nutritious balanced meals and play outside for 60 minutes a day, all they're asking is, at minimum, present the message in a way that doesn't sacrifice mental health for the dubious belief that the child will holistically be healthier if campaigns only focus on the physical.

Considering that similar campaigns about bullying rarely, if ever, mention fat in their rhetoric about reducing rates of bullying (including the White House, who in the past year started a much publicized anti-bullying initiative), then no wonder those of us who were fat children are very upset about this campaign, as we see another example of public health campaigns that refuse to actually do what is best for the fat child in the present moment, since all they can focus on is a non fat-future for the child. Why sacrifice the health of today's child, by tactily endorsing bullying, in order to create a future individual who may be healthier in body but unhealthier in mind?

The tl,dr version: adults who were fat kids have a lot of critical information that would be available to public health officials if they'd only get over their myopic vision and listen to our experiences and insights. Oh, and all forms of bullying sucks.


----------



## KHayes666 (Jan 19, 2012)

mcbeth said:


> The only people in this thread who are at all making a case for the helpfulness of these billboards are non-fat people. The target audience for these billboards is fat people.
> 
> Clearly it's a stellar and effective ad campaign.
> 
> (Or perhaps it is effective, but toward a different goal than what it claims on the surface.)



As a non-fat person I thought I made it clear where I stand but I guess I have to repeat myself.

I'm against the ads, not the motive. I don't agree with bullying but I feel certain parents need to wake up and address the situation. I'm talking the right way as in seeing a nutritionist or simply taking children to a playground for an hour....or better yet, stop being so cynical and let them WALK to and from a playground by themselves.

Am I targeting all parents with overweight children? No. Am I saying bullying ads work or am I supporting them? No. Am I saying certain parents need to take responsibility for their children's possible life threatening obesity....YES!!!


----------



## EMH1701 (Jan 19, 2012)

KHayes666 said:


> As a non-fat person I thought I made it clear where I stand but I guess I have to repeat myself.
> 
> I'm against the ads, not the motive. I don't agree with bullying but I feel certain parents need to wake up and address the situation. I'm talking the right way as in seeing a nutritionist or simply taking children to a playground for an hour....or better yet, stop being so cynical and let them WALK to and from a playground by themselves.
> 
> Am I targeting all parents with overweight children? No. Am I saying bullying ads work or am I supporting them? No. Am I saying certain parents need to take responsibility for their children's possible life threatening obesity....YES!!!



The fact of the matter is, you don't seem to get it. No matter how much responsibility parents take, some kids will still be fat. It's not just a matter of environment & food. Genetics have a role to play in this. Until doctors can come up with a magical shot or pill which alters kids' DNA without any side effects, there are still going to be fat kids.

Yeah, fat kids who eat healthier foods & exercise will be healthier fat kids, but they won't all become skinny kids magically. Also, not all kids live in neighborhoods in which they can safely walk to playgrounds. 

Again, the amount of money one's family has plays a part in health. Discrimination against very fat people is often discrimination against very poor people.

Obesity in and of itself is not necessarily life-threatening to everyone who has it. I am 5'2" and weigh just over 200 pounds. Technically, I'm obese. Do I have serious health conditions such as diabetes? No. Am I going to die in the next few hours? No. 

The idea that obesity is somehow life-threatening is prejudiced & based on brainwashing from mass media.


----------



## bigmac (Jan 20, 2012)

KHayes666 said:


> ...
> 
> Am I saying certain parents need to take responsibility for their children's possible life threatening obesity....YES!!!




Again -- what makes you think there are such parents. 

Cases in point: 

1) The mother of the 8-year-old whose siezure by the State is the basis of this thread had been seeking medical help. The child had been on a medically supervised weightloss program (that worked but only for a short time). Indeed, it was a doctor who called CPS. 

2) The 3-year-old girl from New Mexico who was removed from her family's home by the state and placed in foster care because she weighed 90 pounds. As it turned out, little Anamarie Regino had a genetic condition that caused the extraordinary weight gain. *There was no abuse, there was no neglect, there was no behavioral eating problem.* The emotional damage was done, however, to Anamarie (now a 14-year-old) and her family.

3) The mother of the 680lb 13-year-old California girl who died several years ago had *taken her daughter to the doctor over 90 times* over a period of over 6 years in futile attempts to help her child. The medical establishment could do nothing.

So just how do you suppose parents like these take more responsiblity. And how the hell do adds demomizing them help!!!


----------



## Bananaspills (Jan 23, 2012)

I don't know if this will necessarily be everyone's cup of tea, but have you seen what Ragen from the blog Dances With Fat is trying to put together as an answer to the Georgia billboards? Just in case it's something you'd like to be a part of: http://danceswithfat.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/stand/


----------



## LovelyLiz (Jan 23, 2012)

Bananaspills said:


> I don't know if this will necessarily be everyone's cup of tea, but have you seen what Ragen from the blog Dances With Fat is trying to put together as an answer to the Georgia billboards? Just in case it's something you'd like to be a part of: http://danceswithfat.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/stand/



I was going to add that here too! I really love it! Especially the ones that actually do emphasize healthy activities for all children.

It's one thing to slam a campaign for being shaming and unhelpful (and in this case I agree with the slamming); but it's great when the next step can be taken to actually create a constructive response that shows a better way to go about encouraging all of our kids to live in healthy ways in order to love their bodies.


----------



## imfree (Jan 23, 2012)

Bananaspills said:


> I don't know if this will necessarily be everyone's cup of tea, but have you seen what Ragen from the blog Dances With Fat is trying to put together as an answer to the Georgia billboards? Just in case it's something you'd like to be a part of: http://danceswithfat.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/stand/





mcbeth said:


> I was going to add that here too! I really love it! Especially the ones that actually do emphasize healthy activities for all children.
> 
> It's one thing to slam a campaign for being shaming and unhelpful (and in this case I agree with the slamming); but it's great when the next step can be taken to actually create a constructive response that shows a better way to go about encouraging all of our kids to live in healthy ways in order to love their bodies.



Now there's the stand to take. Weather it is hating and bullying another person for being fat, or hating your own body for being fat, hate is a destructive spiritual force.


----------



## bigmac (Jan 26, 2012)

imfree said:


> ... *hate is a destructive spiritual force.*




I wouldn't have chosen the word "spiritual" but semantics aside I agree totally!


----------



## CastingPearls (Jan 26, 2012)

Participating in the counter-campaign which was spearheaded by Marilyn Wann.


----------



## Lamia (Jan 27, 2012)

CastingPearls said:


> Participating in the counter-campaign which was spearheaded by Marilyn Wann.



I can't rep you Elaine.  Well done.

here is mine.


----------



## imfree (Jan 27, 2012)

Lamia said:


> I can't rep you Elaine.  Well done.
> 
> here is mine.
> ...snipped IMG...



I Repped Lainey for you and will try and Rep you when that Repper is recharged.


----------



## KHayes666 (Jan 28, 2012)

bigmac said:


> Again -- what makes you think there are such parents.
> 
> Cases in point:
> 
> ...



You gave me 3 examples (which I understand, don't get me wrong). How about the parents that walk in LovesBHM's restaurant with obese children and order them fries, burgers, butter filled stuff and no vegetables? 

Is it so hard to admit there are lousy parents out there and that very obese children is NOT ok? I'm not talking about supporting the billboard ads (I've said several times that I don't) nor am I talking about your garden variety fat kids. You don't have to grow up a fat kid to understand that obese, diabetic children is not ok.


----------



## bigmac (Jan 28, 2012)

KHayes666 said:


> You gave me 3 examples (which I understand, don't get me wrong). How about the parents that walk in LovesBHM's restaurant with obese children and order them fries, burgers, butter filled stuff and no vegetables?
> 
> Is it so hard to admit there are lousy parents out there and that very obese children is NOT ok? I'm not talking about supporting the billboard ads (I've said several times that I don't) nor am I talking about your garden variety fat kids. You don't have to grow up a fat kid to understand that obese, diabetic children is not ok.



A couple of points:

First, who the hell orders vegetables at a burger joint? If you did they're likely to be inedible.

Second, you do know that being a food Nazi is the surest way to create eating disorders. Forcing the fat kid to eat diet food while friends and family chow down on burgers and fries is going to result in a fatter child not a thinner one. When parents nag and harang their fat children they don't end up with thinner kids they end up with kids who hoard food in their room and raid the fridge in the middle of the night.

Third, even if parents succeed in locking down the fridge the kid will eventually flee the nest. Once emancipated such kids are likely to eat everything in sight out of spite. (Again I have personal knowledge regarding people who did just this.)


----------



## KHayes666 (Jan 29, 2012)

bigmac said:


> A couple of points:
> 
> First, who the hell orders vegetables at a burger joint? If you did they're likely to be inedible.
> 
> ...



1. Parents that care for nutrition. I've seen it many times from my friends who are parents and my fiancee's friends who are parents. I don't need to be a fat kid or to have kids of my own to know that.

2. I never said anything about being a food nazi. Its more of moderate what they eat and get them some exercise. We're not talking about healthy children here so if keeping the cupcakes out of their reach results in a healthier child then so be it. My fiancee's entire friends circle are parents, all of them in different shapes and sizes and all of them have different parenting ways but not once have I seen a padlock on the fridge or yelling at them for wanting a cookie. Usually its "finish your carrots and you can have a cookie" or something like that. For those that say "the parents of obese kids can't afford carrots" so if that's the case, stop buying the cookies and buy the carrots instead....simple.

3. So? The kids flee the nest as adults. When they're adults they can do whatever they want. If the paysite models want to be 500 pounds that's their own life choice. We're not talking about fully grown adults or legal 18 year olds. We're talking about children here. I'm not saying to lock up the fridge but if keeping certain junk away from obese kids makes it possible for them to live to even see 18-21...so be it.


----------



## bigmac (Jan 31, 2012)

KHayes666 said:


> 1. Parents that care for nutrition. I've seen it many times from my friends who are parents and my fiancee's friends who are parents. I don't need to be a fat kid or to have kids of my own to know that.



What makes you think that the parents of fat kids (even super-fat kids) don't "care for nutrition." Does letting your fat kid eat a burger and fries every now and them mean you don't care? My chubby (the medical profession would say morbidly obese -- i.e. over 99th percentile weight) 3-year-old had a burger and fries this past Saturday and some apple pie with whipped cream on Sunday. Guess I must not care?

Would it make a difference if I told you she was also over the 99th percentile for height, that she ran around the sidewalks and parks of downtown Ventura for almost two hours before her burger (a special treat because her uncle was in town), that she helped make the apple pie out of organic apples she helped pick out at the farmer's market, that she also helped whip organic cream, and that we used less than half the normal sugar in both the pie and whipped cream? Would it make a difference if you knew her little 1-year-old sister (growing up in the same environment) is only in the 10th percentile for weight? 

If you saw my little girl eating her burger sitting while sitting next to her super-sized mom I'm thinking you'd be pretty judgmental.




KHayes666 said:


> 2. I never said anything about being a food nazi. Its more of moderate what they eat and get them some exercise. We're not talking about healthy children here so if keeping the cupcakes out of their reach results in a healthier child then so be it. My fiancee's entire friends circle are parents, all of them in different shapes and sizes and all of them have different parenting ways but not once have I seen a padlock on the fridge or yelling at them for wanting a cookie. Usually its "finish your carrots and you can have a cookie" or something like that. For those that say "the parents of obese kids can't afford carrots" so if that's the case, stop buying the cookies and buy the carrots instead....simple.



If it were only this "simple." Loosing weight is not just the reverse of gaining weight. Once created fat cells are for life and they demand to the filled. Once a kid (or adult for that matter) is super-fat moderate changes in diet or activity result in only minimal weight loss.




KHayes666 said:


> 3. So? The kids flee the nest as adults. When they're adults they can do whatever they want. If the paysite models want to be 500 pounds that's their own life choice. We're not talking about fully grown adults or legal 18 year olds. We're talking about children here. I'm not saying to lock up the fridge but if keeping certain junk away from obese kids makes it possible for them to live to even see 18-21...so be it.



Let me get this straight. Its OK for a 19-year-old to gain and gain (especially if its documented for your sexual gratification) but if a 17-year-old gains the government is entitled to rip the kid away from his/her family and charge the parents with neglect?


----------



## KHayes666 (Jan 31, 2012)

bigmac said:


> What makes you think that the parents of fat kids (even super-fat kids) don't "care for nutrition." Does letting your fat kid eat a burger and fries every now and them mean you don't care? My chubby (the medical profession would say morbidly obese -- i.e. over 99th percentile weight) 3-year-old had a burger and fries this past Saturday and some apple pie with whipped cream on Sunday. Guess I must not care?
> 
> Would it make a difference if I told you she was also over the 99th percentile for height, that she ran around the sidewalks and parks of downtown Ventura for almost two hours before her burger (a special treat because her uncle was in town), that she helped make the apple pie out of organic apples she helped pick out at the farmer's market, that she also helped whip organic cream, and that we used less than half the normal sugar in both the pie and whipped cream? Would it make a difference if you knew her little 1-year-old sister (growing up in the same environment) is only in the 10th percentile for weight?
> 
> ...



You must not listen to what I say because you just proved my point. I said there's nothing wrong with garden variety fat kids that run around outside like you said your child does. Now if your 3 year old weighed 150-200 pounds, was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and can barely waddle around pre-school....then we'd have a problem.

Its not about how much weight a child loses its about not sleeping with a damn mask over their faces that counts. If a child loses 5 pounds and no longer wheezes when they run then even minimal weight loss is good to keep a child healthy. You seem to be forgetting the point, intended targets and anything else I'm talking about. 

Which leads into my next point, 17-19 year olds have fully developing brains that are capable of making their own decisions in life. Its a major difference in a 17 year old with internet access and a 5 year old that has no idea what its doing. I agree that taking grown teenagers away from their homes is incredibly stupid but that's not what I'm talking about, its about very unhealthy children and how some...yes SOME (not all) parents need to wake up because children that age can be conditioned to eat healthier if given the chance.


----------



## one2one (Feb 1, 2012)

KHayes666 said:


> You must not listen to what I say because you just proved my point. I said there's nothing wrong with garden variety fat kids that run around outside like you said your child does.



How can you tell which ones are the organic ones by looking at them (on a billboard or anywhere else)?



KHayes666 said:


> Now if your 3 year old weighed 150-200 pounds ...



Is this even possible? And if it is, I think it's a very clear indicator that their doctors need to be looking for underlying health issues to determine why their bodies are responding that way. Unfortunately, the prejudice and assumptions directed at larger people is so prevalent in our society that it's all over the medical profession as well. There is a serious problem with people who aren't being treated for issues that are causing or contributing to weight gain that can't be attributed to what they eat or their activity level.



KHayes666 said:


> Its not about how much weight a child loses its about not sleeping with a damn mask over their faces that counts.



Right. Except those probably aren't oxygen masks, as you referred to earlier in the thread, they're probably c-pap masks. They are being treated for sleep apnea, and it is not necessarily caused by weight. People of all sizes have sleep apnea (like my dad, who was 5’ 6” and 145 lbs.), and sleep deprivation causes abdominal fat deposits, not the other way around. Responsible sleep specialists are not recommending weight loss as a treatment for sleep apnea because their experience indicates that patients who have lost significant (100 lbs. or more) weight (some through WLS) don’t show a noticeable improvement on follow-up sleep studies.



KHayes666 said:


> If a child loses 5 pounds and no longer wheezes when they run then even minimal weight loss is good to keep a child healthy. You seem to be forgetting the point, intended targets and anything else I'm talking about.



That sounds like a respiratory issue, and it makes me wonder if there isn't a connection between fat and blood oxygenation, but I'm too tired right now to look that up. I'm not in favor of putting a bullseye on the back of any child, for any reason.



KHayes666 said:


> Which leads into my next point, 17-19 year olds have fully developing brains ...



The human brain isn't fully developed until about age 25. 


People with other agendas use scare tactics to create a smoke screen that clouds the issue so you can’t see what they’re really doing. Like slipping money in their pockets. By the time that (mis)information makes it to MSN or the water cooler it's so distorted that it's no longer possible to have an informed discussion about it.

Popular assumptions get passed around as though they’re facts, and they often get the facts wrong. Trying to counter them with reason and information is likely to create a backlash of mob mentality.

Despite the way it might sound, I'm not really directing this at you on a personal level. What grinds my gears more than anything else are the issues of 1) not identifying and addresses the real causes because 2) it is widely acceptable to marginalize, mistreat and blame people who are fat and 3) promote the idea that obesity causes issues that are caused by other factors that are 4) often the real reason people have additional adipose. To do that to a child is something I don't have an appropriate word for.


----------



## butch (Feb 1, 2012)

If you're interested in supporting a cause that lets this organization know how damaging their advertising is to fat kids (and adults), please check out this thread:

http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/forums/showthread.php?t=92175


----------



## HugeFan (Feb 1, 2012)

There's really no point in having this discussion here...No matter how reasonable you try to be, if your argument/point of view includes one percent of acknowledging that in some cases and some ways, being overweight/obese/fluffy/SSBBW/'insert preferred terminology here' can be a risk factor for some health problems, you're going to be shouted down and crucified by a mob accusing you of being prejudiced. 

The topic of the thread has devolved from discussing the actual ads and the motives behind them, their efficacy and propriety in the first place, to a broader and completely different debate over whether concerns over the level of childhood obesity and general fitness of kids these days are valid. Anyone who takes a breath and tries to just look at the situation rationally would have to admit there is validity to these concerns.

If you want to stick your head in the sand and stick to your guns arguing that being significantly overweight, especially at a young age, can't potentially lead to health concerns, you're no better than the fat-bashers you so despise who believe that being slightly plump is not just unattractive but could kill you. The Koolaid's over there in the corner, enjoy it while you look down at the fools who dare to disagree with you.


----------



## bigmac (Feb 1, 2012)

HugeFan said:


> There's really no point in having this discussion here...No matter how reasonable you try to be, if your argument/point of view includes one percent of acknowledging that in some cases and some ways, being overweight/obese/fluffy/SSBBW/'insert preferred terminology here' can be a risk factor for some health problems, you're going to be shouted down and crucified by a mob accusing you of being prejudiced.
> 
> The topic of the thread has devolved from discussing the actual ads and the motives behind them, their efficacy and propriety in the first place, to a broader and completely different debate over whether concerns over the level of childhood obesity and general fitness of kids these days are valid. Anyone who takes a breath and tries to just look at the situation rationally would have to admit there is validity to these concerns.
> 
> If you want to stick your head in the sand and stick to your guns arguing that being significantly overweight, especially at a young age, can't potentially lead to health concerns, you're no better than the fat-bashers you so despise who believe that being slightly plump is not just unattractive but could kill you. The Koolaid's over there in the corner, enjoy it while you look down at the fools who dare to disagree with you.



I actually agree with you 100%. However, I am also aware that anti-obesity programs and interventions many times do more harm than good. Using fear and shame against children won't make them any thinner and will likely lead to eating disorders. Indeed I would argue that fear and shame based programs constitute child abuse.

That goes double when the State abuses its power and rips fat children from their families.

I'm all for the promotion of healthy eating and physical activity. I fully support programs that encourage these. Unfortunately as a society we are not investing in such programs (which are hard to implement and cost big bucks). Rather, as a society we choose to deal with the problem through fear, shame, and resulting hate -- hey its lots easier and much cheaper than actually doing something real like, for example, increasing property taxes to expand (or reintroduce) physical education classes.


----------



## KHayes666 (Feb 1, 2012)

HugeFan said:


> There's really no point in having this discussion here...No matter how reasonable you try to be, if your argument/point of view includes one percent of acknowledging that in some cases and some ways, being overweight/obese/fluffy/SSBBW/'insert preferred terminology here' can be a risk factor for some health problems, you're going to be shouted down and crucified by a mob accusing you of being prejudiced.
> 
> The topic of the thread has devolved from discussing the actual ads and the motives behind them, their efficacy and propriety in the first place, to a broader and completely different debate over whether concerns over the level of childhood obesity and general fitness of kids these days are valid. Anyone who takes a breath and tries to just look at the situation rationally would have to admit there is validity to these concerns.
> 
> *If you want to stick your head in the sand and stick to your guns arguing that being significantly overweight, especially at a young age, can't potentially lead to health concerns, you're no better than the fat-bashers you so despise who believe that being slightly plump is not just unattractive but could kill you. * The Koolaid's over there in the corner, enjoy it while you look down at the fools who dare to disagree with you.



Amen to that. I said a lot earlier I don't support the ads at all but the motive to get children to be healthier instead. For some reason saying that certain children are unhealthy and something should be done (NOT bullying) is akin to me walking into a synagogue with a cross on my neck. But to be fair its been a fairly well done debate with no personal attacking or mud slinging.

Also, that link that Butch posted seems to be the best course of action. I agree with putting a stop to the bullying ads.


----------



## bigmac (Feb 1, 2012)

The problem here is that fat kids and their families need to be protected from the people seeking to help them. Its my position that the "State" decided to abdicate its true responsibilities (i.e. ensuing the availability of good food, providing opportunities for activity and recreation, providing safe walkable neighborhoods ... ). Instead the "State" (including schools and hospitals) chooses to address the problem of fat kids by instilling fear, shame, and hate. And occasionally totally destroying families.

My beef is with the demonization of the parents of fat kids. The assumption that they must be the cause of their child's weight issue and are, therefore, legitimate targets of "State" and social intervention -- up to and including family destruction in the supposed best interest of the child.


----------



## EMH1701 (Feb 1, 2012)

bigmac said:


> Using fear and shame against children won't make them any thinner and will likely lead to eating disorders.



I would say that as a former fat kid, the fear and shame tactics used on me contributed to my lifelong anxiety and other issues. Believe me when I say, fearing and shaming children *does not work,* and it never will. Especially when the kids are at the mercy of whatever their parents buy for them.

Case in point: I found an old cookbook from the 1970's that my late mother had. Guess what it promoted as a "natural" sweetener? High fructose corn syrup! My, how times change. I had to laugh at it because my mother was a complete fat-phobe and had me go on Weight Watchers at age 10 when I was normal weight. I'd post a photo but I don't own a scanner.

Here's the thing: Even if the adults are rich and are feeding the kids all organic stuff, some kids are still going to be overweight. Until someone invents a DNA-altering pill with zero side-effects, that is not going to change. The magic DNA-altering pill is what is needed to "cure" fat kids, and like that's going to happen anytime soon. I'm not sure I'd want to see such a "cure..." maybe only for extreme cases like Prader-Willi, because you know people would abuse it.


----------



## CastingPearls (Feb 1, 2012)

If shame worked no one would be fat.

Healthy food and exercise: Yes
Shame and fear: No. NO.


----------



## HugeFan (Feb 1, 2012)

bigmac said:


> The problem here is that fat kids and their families need to be protected from the people seeking to help them. Its my position that the "State" decided to abdicate its *true responsibilities (i.e. ensuing the availability of good food, providing opportunities for activity and recreation, providing safe walkable neighborhoods ... )*. Instead the "State" (including schools and hospitals) chooses to address the problem of fat kids by instilling fear, shame, and hate. And occasionally totally destroying families.
> 
> My beef is with the demonization of the parents of fat kids. The assumption that they must be the cause of their child's weight issue and are, therefore, legitimate targets of "State" and social intervention -- up to and including family destruction in the supposed best interest of the child.



Couple of quick thoughts. I think ultimately the problem is that the root causes of the issue at hand (unhealthy kids) are multiple, varied, and in part quite complex. They can't be solved by one quick solution, from any direction or source. One aspect, I'd have to think, is just the changing nature of our society and how we live--the incredible changes in technology over the last few decades has changed the nature of recreation and social interaction for everyone, but especially for kids. Go back a few generations and try telling someone that alot of kids weren't getting enough exercise because they spent a great deal of their free time on Facebook, Twittering, on their smartphone or Ipod/Ipad/etc, and playing XBox, and they'd look at you like you'd gone insane. And simultaneously, more and more people aren't necessarily eating healthy, as processed food becomes prevalent and alot of times whoever's in charge of providing meals doesn't have enough time, or money, to do so.

I have to partially disagree with you (maybe because I'm misreading or reading too much into your comments) about what the State's 'true responsibilities' are. There's only so much the government can do as far as the 'availability of good food,' and recreational opportunities; even if good and viable options are out there, it doesn't necessarily mean people will choose them. 

Schools and hospitals, the state, no one is sitting back and saying, 'Yep, we're going to go with the fear, hate and shame based plan versus the carrots and parks approach.' The state can only do so much to address these issues, and each organ of the gov't often will be in a position to really only deal with the symptoms and outcomes of the problems, unable to really affect the underlying causes. And that may lead to misdirected or ineffective efforts, ie the ad campaign in question. 

I think that, in large part, the spectre of Gov't intervention and 'family destruction' in the form of authorities accusing the parents of fat kids of abuse or taking said kids into state custody that has been raised in this thread is quite overblown. Anecdotally I'm aware that it happens, but we're talking about quite a small percent compared with the bigger picture of the issue of unhealthy kids and the response by schools, healthcare, and parents. 

Anyway, I don't agree with the direction these ads went, but I can understand the motives and concerns behind them. Trying to get parents and the public in general to wake up to the reality of some of these issues is not a bad thing, because the responsibility for addressing this problem falls squarely in the laps of the parents. It doesn't matter what the causes of the problem are, the government can only do so much when it comes to taking care of our kids.

At a certain point, personal responsibility has to apply.


----------



## HugeFan (Feb 1, 2012)

EMH1701 said:


> I would say that as a former fat kid, the fear and shame tactics used on me contributed to my lifelong anxiety and other issues. Believe me when I say, fearing and shaming children *does not work,* and it never will. Especially when the kids are at the mercy of whatever their parents buy for them.
> 
> Case in point: I found an old cookbook from the 1970's that my late mother had. Guess what it promoted as a "natural" sweetener? High fructose corn syrup! My, how times change. I had to laugh at it because my mother was a complete fat-phobe and had me go on Weight Watchers at age 10 when I was normal weight. I'd post a photo but I don't own a scanner.
> 
> Here's the thing: Even if the adults are rich and are feeding the kids all organic stuff, some kids are still going to be overweight. Until someone invents a DNA-altering pill with zero side-effects, that is not going to change. The magic DNA-altering pill is what is needed to "cure" fat kids, and like that's going to happen anytime soon. I'm not sure I'd want to see such a "cure..." maybe only for extreme cases like Prader-Willi, because you know people would abuse it.



I completely agree with you as far as 'fear and shame' not working, but I don't like the suggestion by alot of people (not necessarily you) that the government is using such tactics out of some prejudice or malice (at least when we're talking about big picture things, ie the ad campaign, vs a individual incident.) I think it's misguided, and ineffective, but I do think it arises out of legitimate concerns and frustration over not being able to effectively address them.

I also agree that some kids are going to be overweight no matter what; there's always going to be a spectrum of different body shapes, and some people are just naturally going to be bean poles, some more cherubic, and in part that's just genetics. But that doesn't mean that, due to various factors (many of which have been raised by others and myself elsewhere) that are NOT genetic, some kids may start becoming heavier or more unfit. Throwing our hands up in the air and blaming DNA for everything isn't realistic.

The issue here isn't kids who are more or less healthy weights, but have overcritical parents or an asshole for a pediatrician, nor is it the 13 year old cheerleader who happens to be a budding BBW; those certainly exist, and more power to them all. The issue is the rising number of kids who AREN'T healthy. We want the youth of America to grow up as healthy and happy as possible, and that means we need to acknowledge that being concerned with prejudice/bullying AND also taking note and addressing health issues that do occur are NOT mutually exclusive.


----------



## Lamia (Feb 2, 2012)

HugeFan said:


> I.
> 
> The issue here isn't kids who are more or less healthy weights, but have overcritical parents or an asshole for a pediatrician, nor* is it the 13 year old cheerleader who happens to be a budding BBW;* those certainly exist, and more power to them all. The issue is the rising number of kids who AREN'T healthy. We want the youth of America to grow up as healthy and happy as possible, and that means we need to acknowledge that being concerned with prejudice/bullying AND also taking note and addressing health issues that do occur are NOT mutually exclusive.



A campaign that promotes healthy eating and exercise is good. This campaign in Georgia is not good. So when people come here and start arguing about how there are unhealthy fat kids, which there are, then it looks like they're arguing that this campaign in Georgia is the right course of action. I think this is where some of the points of contention may lie. 

Speaking as the 220 lb 13 year old cheerleader I was hardly a "budding" BBW I was in full blossum and was diagnosed "Grossly Obese" and put in a weight loss program where I was encouraged to take a picture of a pig and put my face on it and keep it on my fridge to encourage me to not overeat or have any self-esteem whatsoever apparently.

It didn't matter that I was healthy and active. I was fat, ie broken and needed to be fixed. This is the point that most of us are trying to make that there is no distinction being made.


----------



## HugeFan (Feb 2, 2012)

Lamia said:


> A campaign that promotes healthy eating and exercise is good. This campaign in Georgia is not good. So when people come here and start arguing about how there are unhealthy fat kids, which there are, then it looks like they're arguing that this campaign in Georgia is the right course of action. I think this is where some of the points of contention may lie.



Fair enough, but I would say that a good bit of comments by myself and a few others were directed towards those in the thread who, it seems like at least, were arguing that either there aren't really that many unhealthy fat kids, or that we either shouldn't/couldn't do anything about it, by any course of action, positive or not.



Lamia said:


> Speaking as the 220 lb 13 year old cheerleader I was hardly a "budding" BBW I was in full blossum and was diagnosed "Grossly Obese" and put in a weight loss program where I was encouraged to take a picture of a pig and put my face on it and keep it on my fridge to encourage me to not overeat or have any self-esteem whatsoever apparently.
> 
> It didn't matter that I was healthy and active. I was fat, ie broken and needed to be fixed. This is the point that most of us are trying to make that there is no distinction being made.



My use of 'budding' was directed at the W part of BBW....No matter what size you are, at that age you're still budding in my book. Anyway, I'm truly sorry you went through that, and that quite a large number of us went through similarly negative, traumatic, and downright cruel experiences. Clearly that was unwarranted, and would be counter-productive even if you had needed to lose weight, which if you were healthy and fit you wouldn't need to in the first place.

That said, I would argue that this ad campaign simply isn't as evil or the same as those type of experiences, and that a lot of the people striking out at the spectre of these billboards are flashing back to these much more negative and painful memories from their own past. The ads aren't targeting the parents of kids who are overweight but are still healthy and active. But it's a public service ad on a billboard, so yeah, inherently a blunt and somewhat ineffective delivery. And while they may lead to unintended consequences with overcritical parents, etc, I think that that was already going to happen, and that the other 10,000 forms of media messages bombarding them are just as likely to drown out the impact anyway.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that while the ads are not the way to go, I just don't see them as being as evil and, especially, ill-intentioned as a lot of folks are trying to portray them. 

By the way, still got the pom poms?


----------



## EMH1701 (Feb 2, 2012)

HugeFan said:


> Throwing our hands up in the air and blaming DNA for everything isn't realistic.



I'm not blaming DNA for everything. However, how do you account for the fact that many people eat right (at least, according to the health food NAZI version of eating right) and exercise and still do not lose weight?

I get my 5 servings of veggies in per day. According to my pedometer, I am burning several hundred calories per day. I eat 1500-1700 calories per day (I track it). Yet I have stayed about the same. No drastic weight loss for me. Go figure. 

I do find it interesting that people who advocate doing everything that I am doing seem to think this will make everyone magically thin. It will make people healthier, but not necessarily magically thin. My weight gain was actually a result of many diets since my mother put me on my first diet at age 10. I no longer diet. I simply try to eat a balance of foods and follow a HAES mentality. Still my weight stays at just over 200.

I will argue that DNA does play a role in one's weight and whether or not one will lose weight by conventional methods.


----------



## HugeFan (Feb 2, 2012)

EMH1701 said:


> I'm not blaming DNA for everything. However, how do you account for the fact that many people eat right (at least, according to the health food NAZI version of eating right) and exercise and still do not lose weight?
> 
> I get my 5 servings of veggies in per day. According to my pedometer, I am burning several hundred calories per day. I eat 1500-1700 calories per day (I track it). Yet I have stayed about the same. No drastic weight loss for me. Go figure.
> 
> ...



I completely agree with you that genetics play a big role in shaping our metabolisms, and that some people who ate exactly what you eat and exercised the same amount would lose weight, and that some might even gain weight. And as all too many of us know, as we get older, our metabolisms tend to slow down, to varying degrees. The various ways to lose or gain weight in a healthy manner is a completely different discussion than what I was addressing.

My point was directed at the attitude that there isn't a growing health concern with the level of fitness in kids, or that if there is, it's due to genetics or some other intractable factor, and thus should be disregarded. If kids over the last decade or so have become less healthy, less fit, and in some cases heavier to an unhealthy degree, and the evidence really does seem to suggest that, it's a problem worth looking at. And it just seems to me that the likely cause, overall, has more to do with changing patterns of recreation and social interaction, and the food kids are being fed, than it does with their genetics. While genetics will impact how kids are affected by these underlying causes, it doesn't change the fact that the environment in which many kids are growing up today is different than it used to be.

Again, we're not talking about kids who are HAES (Healthy At Every Size,) nor are we talking about all kids. And we're not talking about the way things were when most of us were growing up. We're talking about a widespread shift in the level of fitness and health, and in some ways, weight, among a lot of kids. And while we can and should have intelligent and informed debate over how to respond to this, it has to begin with recognizing that there is indeed something to respond TO. However ineffective they may be, I think THAT is what those ads were trying to get across.


----------



## Lamia (Feb 2, 2012)

HugeFan said:


> *The ads aren't targeting the parents of kids who are overweight but are still healthy and active.*
> 
> By the way, still got the pom poms?



Well we disagree. There is no distinction being made. Every fat person is painted with the same brush. The hysteria about obesity running rampant is more about the aesthetics than health in my opinion. 

and yes I got the pon poms


----------



## LovelyLiz (Feb 2, 2012)

HugeFan said:


> SNIPPED
> Again, we're not talking about kids who are HAES (Healthy At Every Size,) nor are we talking about all kids. And we're not talking about the way things were when most of us were growing up. *We're talking about a widespread shift in the level of fitness and health, and in some ways, weight, among a lot of kids*. And while we can and should have intelligent and informed debate over how to respond to this, it has to begin with recognizing that there is indeed something to respond TO. However ineffective they may be, I think THAT is what those ads were trying to get across.



I agree with you that certain healthy behaviors like eating fresh fruits and vegetables and getting plenty of exercise and sleep are on the decline among children. And I also agree that encouraging these behaviors, in ALL children, is important. Singling out the fat ones does more harm than good.

In other words, YES there is something to respond to. But putting all the focus on WEIGHT is not where response is primarily needed.


----------



## EMH1701 (Feb 2, 2012)

HugeFan said:


> We're talking about a widespread shift in the level of fitness and health, and in some ways, weight, among a lot of kids. And while we can and should have intelligent and informed debate over how to respond to this, it has to begin with recognizing that there is indeed something to respond TO. However ineffective they may be, I think THAT is what those ads were trying to get across.



I do agree with you that there has been a change, and I think a lot of this has to to with things like income inequality and safety declining overall in neighborhoods. If your neighborhood is overrun by gangs, parents aren't going to want little Johnny or Susie playing outside. There need to be safe areas for kids to play. 

If you can't afford fresh fruits & veggies because you're on food stamps and have to buy canned fruits & veggies, your family's health is probably going to suffer. Believe me, canned veggies often have higher levels of salt and canned fruit often has added sugar. It's not as healthy as fresh or frozen, but that is what people on food stamps wind up having to buy. I have a friend on food stamps who I help out from time to time...their budget is extremely limited. People get high blood pressure if they are eating so many canned veggies and not rinsing the salt off.

IMHO we need to teach people how to garden as a society. We need to get back to a society in which people can grow their own food and store it; then they won't have to buy so much processed junk. It is also possible to apartment garden. People have grown food in pots in their apartments. We need, in general, for people to become more self-reliant.

Where we disagree is the overall intent on the ads. These are, to me, clearly negative ads.

There are more positive ways to get people to do healthier things. To me, until issues are addressed like safety in neighborhoods and the expense of healthy food in our society, you can shame the kids all you want, but if their parents won't let them exercise for fear of getting hit by a stray bullet and they can't afford to buy things like leafy greens on a regular basis, those bulletin boards are not going to do any good.


----------



## one2one (Feb 2, 2012)

bigmac said:


> The problem here is that fat kids and their families need to be protected from the people seeking to help them.



I think this is a really profound statement.



HugeFan said:


> There's really no point in having this discussion here...



I disagree. I think there are a lot of people here who are uniquely qualified to be a part of the conversation. In some ways it’s an ideal place to talk about what’s happening. What’s different here is that people may not be enmeshed in the same pseudo information and assumptions that take over on other forums. One by one, people are saying that what they know (and what research rather than junk science indicates) and have experienced is different than the model they’re being forced into. It doesn’t fit them. But that is still discounted and called denial, with a reference thrown in to drinking the Kool-Aid. 

Keep in mind that when you say something that isn’t true about someone _*to*_ them, they are intimately aware of the difference.


----------

