"Weight-ism:" The Socially Acceptable Prejudice

Age, gender, sexual orientation, race--there are a number of factors that can single out a person without regard to their true self. Although it is illegal to discriminate against any one of these factors in a work environment, one type of discrimination continues to plague society. ABC News' Lee Dye wrote an article on a study conducted for a decade, published March 28 of this year, by research scientist and trained clinical psychologist Rebecca Puhl, of Yale University, and co-author Dr. Tatiana Andreyeva. The two studied a collection of surveys on "weight-ism," the discrimination of the overweight. An update to their data collected in 1995-1996 resulted in Puhl and Andreyeva having found an unsettling trend, an "acceleration" in weight bias. From 1996 through 2006, discrimination against the overweight had not only significantly risen, but also became more prevalent than other forms of prejudice. Since then, I venture to say that the tendency to discriminate against the obese continues. Puhl and Andreyeva assert that this will continue to "add fuel to the obesity epidemic," reminding one that obesity is a disease for which the individual is not responsible. They even go as far as to say that one "really can't expect [...] to lose more than 10 percent of [...] body weight and be able to keep that off." From personal experience, I beg to differ.

Puhl's claim is backed by years of scientific research that has indubitably linked obesity to genetics. Using the argument that race, age, gender, and the like, are factors out of our control, she ventures to say that weight is no different. The belief that it is difficult to sustain weight loss over ten percent of one's body weight is backed by expert panels, like the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Puhl does not discourage people to lose weight rather to refrain from believing that obesity is a "personal responsibility" one can easily overcome through will and determination alone. Thus, those discriminated against face an even tougher battle because of the stigma and stereotyping they endure. She states that weight loss is difficult to sustain and obesity is a genetic problem, as well as the social environment that has been cultivated in American lives continues "weight-ist" progression. True, it is hard enough to lose weight without the added social pressure and criticism, but something is amiss in her argument.

Dye makes mention of a healthier lifestyle being far more expensive than living off fast food and processed goods. Puhl would agree with Dye that when one cannot say "no to just two Girl Scout cookies," it should not be left to personal responsibility. At this point I must draw the line because Puhl downplays personal responsibility. Saying that the "toxic food environment" we live in keeps obesity at bay, Puhl alludes that this environment causes a mental warfare, a battle over nutritional choices, and that this very same environment nurtures the socially acceptable act of weight discrimination. Nutritional facts are there for the individual to take responsibility by becoming aware of their consumption though. Instead of eating inexpensive snacks, like chips and soda, or a cheeseburger, why not use those finances to buy a loaf of bread, sandwich meat, and condiments to make several meals a day? Should the government interfere by posting signs at every corner to remind one of proper nutrition? Should society create a nutrition police to control every personal choice of food consumption? Legal battles have already surfaced against numerous fast food producers, most notably against McDonald's as was famously documented in the film Super Size Me. Just how much is one personally responsible for their eating habits?

I'm not excusing discrimination against the overweight as that would be hypocritical, nor am I belittling Puhl's research, but at some point the individual must take accountability for their part. Instead of litigating, and shifting the blame to exterior motives, take the initiative to not only change behavior, but also take a stand against those who make it difficult to lose weight, whether its a stranger, a bully, a relative, or a corporation. Puhl's argument supports the "victim's" learned helplessness. The correlation between bullying and criticizingexists which perpetuates a vicious cycle of depression and obesity, but to say "that obesity brings social stigmatism and stereotyping, and that can lead to depression, discrimination and binge eating, so the problem just gets worse," is dangerous. Obviously, "weight-ism" being socially acceptable is an issue, one that needs to be rectified, but to disregard personal responsibility is a danger in itself. If "weight-ism" were outlawed, it would leave far too much room to be abused. The fact of the matter is weight can be controlled, while age, race, sexual orientation (controversially) cannot.

Puhl's research also brings to light findings that women are more at risk to face discrimination at different levels. For example, women begin to experience discrimination when their BMI (body mass index) reaches 27, as opposed to men at 35; moderately obese women are likely to face discrimination three times as likely as their male counterpart; and weight is the third most prevalent type of discrimination against women, under gender and age, and the fourth most prevalent among all adults. This upsetting news leaves one to ponder that both weight and negative thoughts and actions (prejudice/bullying/discrimination) are personal responsibilities, which no one should surrender to or give up to the general consensus. Athough Puhl mentions obesity is not strictly a medical "disease," she grossly undermines personal responsibility and fails to look at the overall picture and bring in other explanations for its prevalence. It is true that external factors play a role in many cases of obesity, but personal responsibility and personal will are also determinants in controlling weight.

Jabberwocky What Now?: Cons of Language

Being a novice to the blogosphere, I was surprised to find how difficult it was to find blogs of notable worth. Nonetheless, my efforts were not for naught. Language is something we all take for granted. Many of us use it effortlessly, as we were just born knowing how to use it. In fact, some theories suggest that we are, but that is beside the point. This week, I chose to focus on the wonderful world of language. Inspired by the great Charles Dodgson, whom many know as Lewis Carroll, I decided upon Dave Munger’s “Study finds some thoughts really do require language” as my first cyber-spar. Munger is the co-founder and president of ResearchBlogging.org, and a frequent contributor to his wife’s, Greta Munger, blog Cognitive Daily. ResearchBlogging.org is a blog centered on discussing and creating peer-reviewed research. In this post, Munger argues that language is in fact a requirement in some forms of thought; although, as you will see in my comment, his argument is premature. The second post I commented on was Dr. John M. Grohol’s “Why Do Kids Lie?” which I found at PsychCentral.com. Grohol, a Psy. D., comments on an article found in New York Magazine, showing that kids learn how to lie…from their parents! For your convenience, both comments are posted below, and linked in the post titles above.

"Study finds some thoughts really do require language"
Comment:
Thank you for this intriguing post. I had to think about your argument for a long time before I really understood that language "most definitely appears to be a requirement for some thought," seems flawed to me. From what I understood from the study, verbal distraction tends to corrupt the process of encoding language from visual to verbal memory; by no means does this conclude that it is necessary to express something through language. That language distracts the process of translation seems to be the real issue here.

The lack of research on the non-verbal and brain damaged population minimizes your argument. If some adults are distracted between thought processes, does not mean that deaf people will also postulate the incorrect answer? That research has yet to be done, therefore the answer is inconclusive, and your argument is only half supported.

Also, when it comes to rationalization, and theory of mind, I do have to agree with you that some type of language is necessary in order to express it. How can an adult rationalize where the mouse thinks the cheese is hidden? Naturally, through his observation. In this study, the subject's observation was deterred by the verbal distraction. In all, I think you found evidence that supported your argument. The study was centered on language, as the study you provided showed that "thinking while talking" was a distraction. It was a little far reaching to state conclusively that language was a "requirement" to some thought processes.

"Why Do Kids Lie?"
Comment:
Let me be the first to say--I am in your debt for helping me prove that my lying ways are not my fault--blame it on my parents! If only that were the case. I can proudly admit that those days are long gone, the days where lying was a force of adaptation, and not habit. Would I go as far as to say that I was only mimicking my parents, as opposed to saving my own skin?

I find it difficult to completely lay the burden of responsibility on parenting, rather socializing in general, as was the case in the "Bobo doll" modeling experiment by Bandura. Children do view their parents as models, and as your example shows, parents even encourage their children to lie about things. This poses the consequence of habitually lying children when they do not know the difference between a "social lie" and the other, as your post mentions.

You also mention that lying gets easier with practice, as is the case with every behavior one learns; still, are parents completely responsible? I think every child, after a certain age, makes the conscious decision to lie in order to avoid negative consequences. In that case, is it still the case that parents are responsible for that? Your research makes it sound like lying is a conditioned behavior, where children, through no fault of their own, are taught to lie. Is that the case for every child?