By: T.R. Slyder, TRSlyder@yahoo.com
I won't say the name, but a fat guy that I admired recently died. He was fairly old, and pretty fat, so his death isn't shocking. Had he been skinnier, this would have been a relatively early death. But he was fat, so it was understood.
Had he been a life-long smoker, I'm sure that would have somehow been snuck into his obituary. Maybe they'd say, "...a life-long smoker, he devoted his spare time to friends and gardening.", or perhaps, "He succumbed to a battle with cancer after being a longtime smoker.". Then after the broadcast of his death, countless parents would then turn to their children and say, "See, that's why you shouldn't smoke." and of course they would be right.
But he was obese. That eluded all the eulogies I heard. No mention of, "with blood-pressure of 180/140, he was a family man, especially in his later years.". I doubt many parents will turn to their kids and say, "See, that's why you should order the chicken salad with oil and vinegar dressing on the side, and not a cheeseburger with mayonnaise and french fries."
Why is that? How is that not fair game? Our society loves thinking that addiction (tobacco, alcohol, other drugs) is indicative of a weakness and is 100% the fault of the addicted party. But our society also seems to look the other way with obesity, as though it accidentally happened, or is somehow outside of one's locus of control.
Put more scholarly, addiction happens in active voice, obesity in the passive voice.
Dave suffered from obesity vs. Dave was decades-long user of heroin. It's never the inverse- Dave suffered from a heroin addiction vs. Dave was life-long obese man.
"After years of smoking 2 packs a day, Mr. Robertson died of heart failure." You hear hear that, but not, "After decades of eating unnecessarily fried foods, liberal use of cheese and a love of empty carbs, Mr. Robertson passed away." Not sure why that is.
Another example of this double standard is the simple test of saying it to someone's face. When you see a friend or relative light up a cigarette, it's ok to say, "When are you gonna quit that crap, man?", or, "Do you know how much money you waste in cigarettes?" or even the popular judgement-as-a-flirtation-vehicle, "You're too pretty to smoke." If you say any of those, you fall somewhere between being correct, yet out of line, and a good friend who has the guts to say what needs to be said. However, if your obese friend orders veal scallopini instead of grilled chicken and you say, "Why are you trying to get fatter than you already are?", or "So when will you be fat enough?","You already achieved obesity. How 'bout you tone it down some, huh?", or "Is it a heart attack or stroke you lust after?", you are soulless, petty, supercifial, mean-spirited, and just needlessly cruel. How is that less noble than the cigarette mini-intervention? What's the difference betwen, "Dude, you're drunk. You don't need another scotch." And, "You're obese, you don't need fried chicken."?
The only reason for the double standard that I can think of is the guilty-pleasure's impact on physical appearance. Fat people are fat, but addicts can come in any shape. Put differently, fatness is displayed outwardly. Since fatness is accepted as unsexy, when you bring that to light (as though it were previously unknown) you are, by definition, assailing someone's sexual attractiveness which is uncalled for. But it existed before you mentioned it. And if you mentioned it and it were untrue, there would be no harm in your inaccurate appraisal, much like you when you call me an ugly babboon with herpes, I take no offense. I'm not a babboon.
Ok, I don't have herpes either (ladies, you know my email address!).
So it is somehow offensive to point out what everyone else can plainly see. How does that work? If you call a 50 year-old female smoker, a "cigarette addict", she'll either say "Yeah. So?", "Duh?" or, "screw you". If you call an obese 50-year old woman, "obese", she will cry. The only reason I can see for that is related to sexual attraction. It feels as though you're saying, "People find me more sexually appealing than they find you.". But that's just as objective as calling someone a smoker or an addict. How is that less "called-for"?
Same people say obesity is an addiction to food. Some claim that it's lack of will power, while other's claim that it's a function of poor education and/or poverty. You're also likely to hear that it may be a genetic pre-disposition. Sometimes though, it's just related to stress- comfort food, ya know? Those don't sound very different from the reasons people get caught up in addiction.
If your 5-year old tells a stranger on the street, "eww you smoke! Gross!", it's mildly rude, but at the same time it's true and maybe, just maybe, the smoker will take it to heart. But if he tells a fatty, "eww you're fat! Gross!" you're child is rude, poorly controlled, and in need of better parenting. But is your child any less right?
Great people can be obese, and great people can be drug addicts. Those will forever be parts of human nature, and those do not make people bad people. Conversely, If you make fun of someone's acne, crooked teeth or economic standard- that's petty. But obesity and addiction kill people. That's why I don't think it's rude to say, "hey man, how about you just get a turkey sandwich on wheat and not a Philly cheesesteak?". Cheesesteaks kill people too.
FoxNews.jpg)
FoxNews.jpg)
Posts
