From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: Why are many low-income women fat? (was Re: Separate but Equal?)
Date: 04 Jan 93 09:30:54 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Dec31.035343.25285@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <1992Dec28.072814.7365@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>>Why doesn't "healthier" == "better"?
>
>You missed the point completely. 

No, I got the point. I wanted to know why you _weren't_ making
a value judgement.

>>Please don't take this the wrong way, Rich...but do you *REALLY* not
>>make value judgements based on how fat someone appears to be, while
>>at the same time preaching being fat is a personal choice, and that
>>anyone who is fat can and should become fit???
>
>This is mixed up, there is no way I can take it, much less wrong.

Sorry. I typically encounter people who make and voice value judgements on
people's bodies with less thought than they give to which socks to put
on in the morning.  I've also encountered people who have no problems 
with accepting fat people - but they tend to stick less in one's mind 
[they don't stop you in the mall or on the way to class and tell you how
you'd be so beautiful if you just lost X pounds, or point and tell their
companion "didn't know we were hiring whales <snicker, snicker>", or tell
you about how "to stop being fat for your own good" etc, etc.]

Main reason I jumped was the combination of "fit==(!fat)" and "staying
fat is a choice" message...which in my experience is well-correlated
with "staying fat is a bad choice". Sorry about that.

Maybe you've never been noticably fat [I'm not talking "I could stand to
lose 10 pounds", I'm talking 100 or more over the average weight for your
height. If so you may not believe me. 

>Maybe this will help, your value judgement does not have to agree with
>mine, and they are still both right. 

I agree with that.

>And I did not say that -being- fat is
>a personal choice, but staying that way may be.

Hmmm. Can't really totally disagree with that.

Side note....

I quit buying Covert Bailey's fit==(!fat) when I looked around
me and saw several people who were !fat, but also !fit. Several of
my college classmates weren't able to keep up with me while 
walking, or to lift as much, or as limber. But they didn't have a
layer of fat under their skin either. Most stayed this way by choice
by not eating much or by living on coffee and/or smoking. Cheryl & 
Lyn, tho, couldn't seem to get their fat level up...they tried, too.
Milkshakes & fried foods & other fatty things out the wazzoo (they
were both trying to conceive, under 10% bodyfat, and their doctors
thought the lack of bodyfat was the problem).

Anyway, I figure that fitness includes aerobic (heart/respitory system),
strength, and flexibility. So, stretching and yoga, some lifting, and
aerobics.  I also figure "level of fitness" is a scale & where each
person should be on that scale is up to them & what they need/want.
My dad is a warehouseman who lifts & manipulates pipes for sprinkler
systems - mostly steel pipes from 1" to 16" in diameter, in lengths
usually around 4'-12'. I have a "sissy white-collar desk job".  His
daily life requires a higher level of fitness than mine.

As for diet...gads, I'm just trying to quit thinking of food in
terms of "bad" and "good" and think of it as fuel. 

Your mileage may vary....

-jen
Newsgroups: alt.feminism