|
|
Mommy I Want Plus Size Barbie
VIP
Serveur: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-01-08 00:59:22
being 10-20 lbs over your ideal weight ... means you are more predisposed to many health conditions. Incorrect. 10-20 lbs. is a negligible amount unless you're about 4'10". This is why I keep taking exception to what you're saying: you have a decidedly myopic view of how weight affects health.
First of all, you need to stop using the word "weight" when you mean "excess fat." They are not identical and I know you know that. Secondly, even 30 lbs. of extra fat is not going to reliably affect the average person. The ridiculous ideal weight I should be at as a man who is 5'8" would be something like 140 lbs. I'm presently 200 lbs., of which 20% is bodyfat (I freely admit that I have excess weight and am losing it). Even if I were to somehow lose all 40 lbs. of bodyfat that I'm carrying, which would kill me dead, I'd still be 20 lbs. above the so-called bloody "ideal." Moreover, I'm a long way from unique as upwards of 2/3rds of the male population can gain the kind of musculature that will render them "overweight." That's hardly anomalous, it just happens that the First World is full of lazy sods with no muscle tone who think they're healthy if they can pull on skinny jeans.
But you're the one who keeps using weight as a measure of health and I keep repeating: it isn't. Activity level is a measure of health. Body fat percentage is a better measure than body weight (although still imperfect because there are scrawny weaklings who weigh 150 lbs. but are at 20% BF just like me yet wheeze climbing five flights of stairs). Waist-to-hip is a reasonable predictor of health, but only in that it demonstrates where bodyfat is being stored (so-called apple vs. pear shapes, also known as visceral vs. subcutaneous, the latter being the feminine version and the healthier style).
I really would like you to respond to my question, though. I find it quite irritating that you've skipped past it when our motives are clearly identical.
Barbie isn't inhumanly slender anymore, they updated her figure over ten years ago and it is a fairly realistic representation of a slender female body. The knockoffs are the ones that retain unrealistic proportions. I don't see the point you're trying to make about showing children a slender form being a bad thing.
If you want a better descriptor than weight, BMI, body fat, measurements, and proportions, why not make up your own? Maybe we can judge someone's overall health by how many goldfish crackers they can fit in their nose?
Serveur: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 5381
By Bahamut.Baconwrap 2014-01-08 01:12:06
Serveur: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3621
By Shiva.Onorgul 2014-01-08 02:34:34
Barbie isn't inhumanly slender anymore, they updated her figure over ten years ago and it is a fairly realistic representation of a slender female body. The knockoffs are the ones that retain unrealistic proportions. I don't see the point you're trying to make about showing children a slender form being a bad thing. As Baconwrap just pointed out, you are quite wrong.
As for why it is a bad thing to show someone an object that is unrealistic... dear heaven, do I really have to repeat this yet again? Clearly you're not interested in actually understanding a very simple psychological concept, so I'll not repeat it. Look up the term modelling as it applies to psychology; perhaps reading it from someone with letters after his name will make common sense take root.
If you want a better descriptor than weight, BMI, body fat, measurements, and proportions, why not make up your own? Maybe we can judge someone's overall health by how many goldfish crackers they can fit in their nose? It would be considerably more gentlemanly if you just admitted you're wrong. This whinging diversion just makes you look puerile. Besides, half of what you mentioned are things I didn't object to.
 Lakshmi.Saevel
Serveur: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2228
By Lakshmi.Saevel 2014-01-08 03:49:05
If you want to sit on your butt and manage to stay thin, grats, but the vast majority of people who are overweight could easily be in their ideal range and much healthier by all metrics if they skipped one soda a week and went for a short walk 2-3 days a week. I think you've missed a point in here. I'm overweight according to BMI. But, at the same token, it would literally be impossible for me to ever not be. At my current body fat percentage, even if I reduced myself to 0% body fat (which, on top of being impossible, would also result in my immediate death), I would still be overweight. I am a mesomorph: I grow muscles without even trying. That I am put several thousand miles a year on my bicycle and work in heavy labor has only accelerated that.
If I was willing to do so, I could show you two photographs of me weighing the same amount (within about 5 lbs. margin of error) and could easily convince you that I had lost at least 50 lbs. in that interval. Unfortunately, I'm not willing to do so, so you'll just have to take it on my word when I say that height-to-weight is a useless ratio.
But Savael lands on precisely the problem with the BMI (in between his arbitrary and unhistorical claims):
They are fairly accurate when used on a general sedate population. Your happy measure of health as based on weight is essentially only accurate when judging people with virtually no activity level. I really want you to take note of this, Jassik: someone who exercises and is inclined to gain muscle (which means at least 60% of the population) is likely to weigh too much exactly because they are healthy.
Being overweight brings a host of medical issues that affect people in an ideal weight range at a much lower rate. Issues like joint problems, back problems, liver and metabolic problems, and especially self image problems. At least in this you do make a valid point, but it is a very weak one. Joint and back problems are caused just as often by activity as lack of activity, dependent on age and circumstance. As a cyclist, my knees and shoulders give me all kinds of nuisance if I treat them wrong and neither has a whit to do with my mass. Being a skinny couch potato inclines you to things like osteoporosis and joint trouble in later life. I won't deny that carrying 300 lbs. kills knee cartilage, but moderation in all things and being 200 lbs. won't produce the same effect. A large part of my argument against Barbie has been the promotion of an unhealthy ideal (namely, anorexic thinness) and that's hardly going to make for an optimal self-image. At which point I reiterate my question:
In the meantime, if it is unfair for children to see someone who is clinically obese or possibly just unpleasantly pudgy (enough with the dissembling, it is your standard of aesthetics that you're judging with), how is it any more fair to show them someone who is inhumanly slender, like Barbie, or inhumanly hypertrophic, like GI Joe?
As to your point on reproductive health in women... yeah, I'll cop to it, I was leading with a weak hand there.
Get off the train of BMI and weight alone determining health. Some people aren't built like others, that's fine. You can't base a standard off an anomaly. Being inactive and eating poorly have a direct impact on weight (again, we're talking about flabby couch potato weight) and overall health.
I still don't understand why people have to take the exception as justification for moving the goal posts. You're grasping at straws, nobody is saying that being 10-20 lbs over your ideal weight means you're going to die of fat cancer, it means you are more predisposed to many health conditions.
It's complicated but safe to say they are white knighting hard core in defense of entitled liberalized females. Notice how virtually all the discussion of weight and fat shaming centers around girls and their feelings. Maintaining a healthy body requires work in a society where food is not scarce. Those who do not put forth this work become overweight and ugly, they are socially rejected and denied male attention & validation.
Our body's eating habits evolved from proto-humans scavenging for food and eating whatever they could get their hands on. At that time there was no guarantee of when you'd have your next meal so our bodies reward us with a hit of dopamine whenever we gorge ourselves. This goes doubly so if we can get a hold of sugars which aren't nearly as common in nature as they are in a modern society. Every last one of us is born with a sugar and dopamine addiction, it's a key survival mechanism that served us well during the last ice age (actually past several ice ages). This mechanism is completely unsuited for modern society where food isn't scarce and our next meal can be planned guaranteed. We need to utilize our fore brain and practice self control by denying the urges of our hind brain. When we feel the need to eat more, we need to tell ourselves no, which is incredibly hard for an addict. Fat people are just food addicts and have become addicted to the periodic dopamine hit from gorging themselves. They act exactly like any other addict, first refusing to acknowledge their addiction, then blaming their addiction on everyone and everything else in an attempt to avoid taking responsibility for it while generating sympathy and convincing people to enable their addiction.
Anyhow, the social dynamics of fat acceptance is just a bid to lower the bar of what's considered sexually acceptable. It's feminist liberals trying to shame men into "accepting" women being fat. After all when's the last time you heard one of them trying to convince attractive women to date and give attention to overweight fat guys (throw short and bald in there to really see volcanic rationalization).
It's why all their word twisting, false dichotomy's, straw men and emotional logical has no effect on me. Once you know what their trying to do it becomes laughable.
[+]
 Caitsith.Zahrah
Serveur: Caitsith
Game: FFXI
By Caitsith.Zahrah 2014-01-08 09:18:31
Jeebus! You all have been busy! Who would of thought Barbie demands perfection and everyone to step in a thread with barrels loaded and their guns cocked! Mexican stand-off.
Oh no! It's the "G" word on FFXIAH!
I guess we're trailing back to over a week ago upon request still? I have serious apprehensions about bumping this.
Leviathan.Kincard said: »If you want a decent paper that's open for you to view for free there is one directly in opposition ito yours, Bacon:
The Effects of Playing with Thin Dolls on Body Image and Food Intake in Young Girls. Some highlights if you're tl;dr:
Quote: The sample consisted of 117 girls (grades 1 to 4) from seven primary schools in the southeast of The Netherlands...The mean age of the sample was 8.04 (SD = 1.32)...The mean body mass index (BMI) of the girls was 17.28 (SD = 2.70) Quote: Although no support was found for the assumption that playing with thin dolls influences body image, the dolls directly affected actual food intake in these young girls. Quote: Contrary to Dittmar et al. (2006), we did not find that exposure to a thin doll negatively affected body esteem or actual-ideal body size discrepancy compared with exposure to an average-sized doll for girls younger or older than 7.5 years. An explanation might be that Dittmar et al. (2006) exposed the girls to a picture book with images of the dolls - which might not be different from exposure to thin models in magazines- whereas the girls in our study actually played with the dolls. Quote: However, closer inspection of the means indicated that the girls ate more when they played with the average sized Emme doll instead of eating less when they played with the thin dolls. This might be explained by the fact that exposure to a heavier model leads to elevated food intake.
Here's what I take from it: playing with a doll for 10 minutes doesn't really tell me much, although I guess thought process was probably that if the girl just came fresh off playing with a doll the immediate reaction is better than knowing nothing. The reaction to the Emme doll is pretty interesting, it means that even if we can't argue that there's a psychological effect of the dolls directly on self-image for children, that doll posted in OP might make kids eat more, which is bad, hah. That might mean the plussize Barbie is actually more harmful to children, but who knows.
These are tangentially related articles, they examine media exposure in general (this is a far more popular area of study, not a lot of people look at dolls specifically) and seem to indicate that there's a magical age (6, this is cited in several studies) where children start to notice their own self-image more, so it turns out the really small children playing with Barbies arn't the one you should be worried about, it's children 6+ and teenagers/young adults, what a surprise.
Am I too fat to be a princess? Examining the effects of popular children's media on young girls' body image
Quote: Participants were 121 mother/daughter dyads from a metropolitan area in the Southeast United States...Girls ranged in age from 3 to 6 years old (M=4.44, SD=1.06) and were predominantly Caucasian (62.0%; 13.2% Biracial; 6.6% Hispanic; 5.0% African-American; 4.1% Asian; and 9.1% did not provide a response). The majority of children were of a healthy weight based on maternal report of height and weight (52.2% with a BMI in the 5th to 85th percentile based upon age; 22.2% obese [BMI≥95th percentile]; 12.2% overweight [85th percentile < BMI > 95th percentile]; and 13.4% underweight [BMI < 5th percentile]. Mothers, who served as informants, ranged in age from 23 to 69 years old (M=36.80, SD=6.50). Quote: Children were randomly assigned to the experimental or control condition.
...
Based on independent t tests and chi-squared analyses, there were no significant differences between the experimental and control groups in age, race, weight classification category, weekly television viewing hours, or number of Disney DVDs owned. Quote: Although it was hypothesized that exposure to appearance-related media would result in more appearance-related play activity, results failed to reveal any differences between the exposure conditions. In fact, a wide range of play behaviours were observed within each group, with some children engaging exclusively in a single type of activity. Similarly, results also failed to reveal any direct negative effect on girls' body dissatisfaction. These results are in contrast to what was hypothesized; however, they are consistent with several cross-sectional studies that also have reported that media exposure does not affect body dissatisfaction in girls younger than 6 years old (Dohnt & Tiggemann, 2004, 2005) Quote: slight increase of fat worry reported by older girls in the experimental group and significant decrease in fat worry reported by older girls in the control group
I think most had the same impression as you did after reading the study.
Personally, I consider the last two links you provided more accurate examples of the influences on girls. I think placing blame on an inanimate object is side-stepping the other pressures, and even glossed over peer influence in my silly anecdotes. (The third was my favorite read, by the way.)
The thing is, these studies are not finite, and they usually lead to more expansive questions. There's always other variables that can influence girls.
Quote: In addition, more recent research has focused on the parents, particularly the mothers, as influential role models for younger girls 5-8 years of age.
This begs the question, what about other members of the family? Even factors like gender of siblings and birth order could determine a girl's confidence, or lack there of, prior to some of these studies. What about the father's influence? (I'm not knocking any of your contributions. I liked them. Ugh! I feel like I have to walk on eggshells now.)
The question I had earlier still lingers. (The one that started the ***storm.) What confidence-building activities are they possibly involved in, or if they even participate in any at all? Music, art, choir, dance (AHHH! Freak out, right?), gymnastics, acting, sports, etc.?
There were a couple more, but I need more coffee for that memory jog.
[+]
By fonewear 2014-01-08 10:15:21
Barbie is serious business.
[+]
Serveur: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 1837
By Valefor.Applebottoms 2014-01-08 13:05:49
Barbie is serious business. Iunno, those Monster High and those new "My Little Pony hey they turned into girls" dolls are all the rage now.
Then again, Lisa Frank is making a comeback now. Give it time, Barbie will reign supreme once again.
[+]
By fonewear 2014-01-08 13:18:44
That is why I gave my kids a cardboard box instead of a barbie. Will teach young girls to hate men but just at a slower pace.
[+]
Serveur: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 1837
By Valefor.Applebottoms 2014-01-08 13:25:06
That is why I gave my kids a cardboard box instead of a barbie. Will teach young girls to hate men but just at a slower pace. I was given Barbie growing up, but then realized that I could actually play with Legos after a while and then decided to do that for a few years.
Oh the memories... then the cat we had peed all over them all and ruined it for me. D:
And hey, you ever seen that Spongebob episode?
[+]
By fonewear 2014-01-08 13:29:58
I had ninja turtles as a kid and I have hated turtles ever since...well the mutant ones at least.
Serveur: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 1837
By Valefor.Applebottoms 2014-01-08 13:33:37
I had ninja turtles as a kid and I have hated turtles ever since...well the mutant ones at least. AND NOW THEY'RE BACK.
I will admit, the show is awesome and has good, funny moments to it.
[+]
By fonewear 2014-01-08 13:35:17
I like where this picture is going. lol Turtles are more deviant than they appear.
Lakshmi.Flavin
Serveur: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 18466
By Lakshmi.Flavin 2014-01-08 13:44:08
One group of people concerned about making sure people don't feel bad about being fat and the other group trying to make sure they do. Let the games begin!
[+]
Serveur: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 1837
By Valefor.Applebottoms 2014-01-08 13:48:53
One group of people concerned about making sure people don't feel bad about being fat and the other group trying to make sure they do. Let the games begin! Just replace the word fat with:
-liberal
-conservative
-pro/anti life
etc, etc.
It all ends the same way: No clear winner and the thread getting cut short when everyone has to resort to name calling to get their "point" across.
That being said:
/getspopcorn
Serveur: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 1837
By Valefor.Applebottoms 2014-01-08 14:24:52
All I see is adjectives being used to pretext others. Exactly.
Serveur: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 1837
By Valefor.Applebottoms 2014-01-08 14:58:49
I think the second one deserves a "Burn it with fire!", but we'll see where it goes with everyone.
Thoughts?
 Fenrir.Atheryn
Serveur: Fenrir
Game: FFXI
Posts: 1665
By Fenrir.Atheryn 2014-01-08 15:09:59
[+]
By fonewear 2014-01-08 16:25:34
One group of people concerned about making sure people don't feel bad about being fat and the other group trying to make sure they do. Let the games begin!
The goal is to feel bad fat or thin.
 Lakshmi.Zerowone
Serveur: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6949
By Lakshmi.Zerowone 2014-01-08 17:08:22
Fat people are just food addicts and have become addicted to the periodic dopamine hit from gorging themselves
uh huh...hope your future wife doesn't get stricken with hypothyroidism... er I mean dopamine addiction.
By applecrunch 2014-01-08 17:14:22
Fat people are just like you and me just more plump.
 Ragnarok.Zeig
Serveur: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 1618
By Ragnarok.Zeig 2014-01-08 17:56:32
Leviathan.Kincard said: »Shiva.Onorgul said: Half the crap we're told is caused by weight actually isn't, either. Diabetes and heart disease in particular are not easily predicted by being overweight.
There is no scientific basis for diabetes being directly caused by weight and the correlation may certainly be incidental (since overweight people spike their insulin way more)
The correlation being strong with central obesity in particular, and the improvement of glycemia after shedding a few pounds of fat alone suggests otherwise, though.
[+]
[+]
By applecrunch 2014-01-08 19:08:44
YouTube Video Placeholder
VIP
Serveur: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-01-08 23:27:34
Barbie isn't inhumanly slender anymore, they updated her figure over ten years ago and it is a fairly realistic representation of a slender female body. The knockoffs are the ones that retain unrealistic proportions. I don't see the point you're trying to make about showing children a slender form being a bad thing. As Baconwrap just pointed out, you are quite wrong.
As for why it is a bad thing to show someone an object that is unrealistic... dear heaven, do I really have to repeat this yet again? Clearly you're not interested in actually understanding a very simple psychological concept, so I'll not repeat it. Look up the term modelling as it applies to psychology; perhaps reading it from someone with letters after his name will make common sense take root.
If you want a better descriptor than weight, BMI, body fat, measurements, and proportions, why not make up your own? Maybe we can judge someone's overall health by how many goldfish crackers they can fit in their nose? It would be considerably more gentlemanly if you just admitted you're wrong. This whinging diversion just makes you look puerile. Besides, half of what you mentioned are things I didn't object to.
Waitaminute... A cartoon drawing and measurements that appear to be an extrapolation compared to the "Average American Woman" is about as relevant to what I said as how Spongebob compares to a Velocaraptor.
I have no reason to admit to being wrong about the subject, I'm not wrong. And nobody has ever accused me of being a gentleman.
[+]
Serveur: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 5381
By Bahamut.Baconwrap 2014-01-08 23:36:31
Read the article. The cartoon you're criticizing is translating Barbie's proportions into human numbers.
So yes she is inhumanly slender, at least w/o the assistance of a cosmetic surgeon.
VIP
Serveur: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-01-08 23:41:19
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »Read the article. The cartoon you're criticizing is translating Barbie's proportions into human numbers.
So yes she is inhumanly slender, at least w/o the assistance of a cosmetic surgeon.
I'm sorry, where in the article does it cite who actually performed the measurements and by what method? What model of doll? Are there any other sources for the information besides the website listed?
The article is beyond biased, it's a shock piece containing a lot of conjecture and basically no fact. It's also comparing supposed dimensions to the "AVERAGE" American female. Since when is the most obese country in the world's average a model of health?
[+]
Serveur: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 5381
By Bahamut.Baconwrap 2014-01-09 00:24:51
For someone who has critisized sources emensely in this thread you have no citations defending your points.
I think I provided the most credible thusfar from the APA earlier. Where are your citations?
Lakshmi.Saevel
Serveur: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2228
By Lakshmi.Saevel 2014-01-09 02:03:33
Fat people are just food addicts and have become addicted to the periodic dopamine hit from gorging themselves
uh huh...hope your future wife doesn't get stricken with hypothyroidism... er I mean dopamine addiction.
People this is a good example of a non sequitur, otherwise known as buffaloing.
Hypothyroidism has absolutely nothing to do with with fat acceptance of fat people in general and even less within the context of this discussion (if you can call it that). Hypothyroidism would actually cause a lower appetite not bigger one and any weight fluctuations are due to mismatched caloric intake vs energy usage. Since a lowered thyroid cause's fatigue the person in question would be less active and thus using less energy per day. If that person had a healthy life style before hand then nothing changes, their lower appetite results in less food intake which match's their lower energy usage. Of course if that person had an unhealthy lifestyle, like most western people, then they will start experiencing weight gain as they succumb to their food addiction.
It's like type-2 diabetes, the weight gain is caused by the lifestyle choice not the disease though in the case of type-2 diabetes the disease itself is caused by frequent sudden spikes in blood sugar. The human body can handle occasional spikes in blood sugar, excess insulin is produced to signal the body to start storing all that excess carbohydrates for future use. Daily spikes will cause the whole system to start malfunctioning and eventually break down. Type 1 diabetes is the only one where the person's choices had no part in the matter, it's purely genetic. The funny thing is because type 1 diabetics very life depends on a well regulated insulin supply they tend to live extremely healthy life styles.
Anyhow since I have zero desire to allow an entitled liberal women unrestricted access to my current and future success I don't have to worry about an overweight behemoth of a wife. Body weight always has been, and always will be, 100% under our control. It's our responsibility to moderate our diet and food intake to match our lifestyle. Either eat less and live a sedate lifestyle or eat more and live an active physical lifestyle. Personal responsibility is anathema to the victim mentality so I don't expect much progress in western nations.
Plus Size Barbie On Modeling Site Sparks Debate Over Body Image
Quote: "Plus-size" models (or any models above the super-skinny norm, for that matter) serve a dual purpose: They showcase plus-size clothing for a growing market... and they also provide women with a more diverse range of bodies to look up to.
So if we have plus-size women modeling clothes, why not have plus-size Barbies? That's the question posed recently by Plus-Size-Modeling.com on Facebook, when the group posted an illustration of a plus-size Barbie-like doll: 
|
|
