From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: why poor women are obese
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 15:51:26 GMT

In article <oneil.724201036@cwis> oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil) writes:
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Dec9.165938.15284@cs.cornell.edu> jean@cs.cornell.edu (Jean M. Petrosino) writes:
>>>Check out the politics that surround this issue--it is more expensive it eat
>>>properly, and to know how to eat properly.  
>
>>This is not true, buy most of your foods at the vegetable counter (the
>>cheapest section in the store) and you will have a low-fat diet high in
>>nutrients. As for cost, I am pretty sure that most can afford a library
>>card.
>
>Actually, from what I understand about vegetarianism, is that it isn't always
>easy to have a well-balanced diet.  I had a number of vegetarian friends 
>in the town I used to live in.  They had to eat larger portions in order to
>get all the nutrients that they needed.  You don't necessarily lose weight on
>a vegetarian diet.

I am not proposing vegetarianism. Just that one eats no junk food, and
cuts back on the meats. The problem is too much fat in the diet, and 90%
of the dietary fat comes from meat and junk food. 

There are also nutritional advantages too eating fresh vegetables.

As for fat vegetarians, you are correct. But have you seen what some people
put on their salads? And things like nuts and avacados are also high in fats.
 
>>>                                            I don't think it's a coincidence 
>>>that we as a society idolize thinness, particularly on the part of women.  
>>>Historically, the less attainable (and mostly more expensive) body image is 
>>>that time's ideal body type.  
>
>>So what is it that you propose, a conspiracy?
>
>Actually, yes.  Well, I'm not saying its a well-coordinated conspiracy, but
>there is a commercial reason to keep women focused on the less attainable,
>more expensive ideal body type.  Look at the thousands of dollars spent 
>each year on diet drinks, diet pills, diet dinners, diet this and diet that.

How do you differentiate between a market developing where there is a need,
and developing a market by causing a need? As for markets, they grow and
die, there are no guarentees.
 
>>>                              For example, in many countries where starvation
>>>runs rampant, the heavier a woman is, the more attractive she is considered to
>>>be.  In America today, where food is generally plentiful, women (and men) are
>>>expected to be thin.  Therefore, a heavy poor woman is viewed with the 
>>>ultimate distaste as Robert Schaeffer illustrated.
>
>>I am not sure I follow you. Most women are seeking what -they- consider
>>an ideal weight, and surveys have shown that this is not what men would
>>consider ideal. The survey I recall found that the men thought that women
>>would ideally weigh more than the ideal weight given by the women. 
>
>Hmmm, well, actually, men are more interested in what is considered an
>ideal "body type" not so much "body weight."  That body type is nearly 
>impossible to attain.  You are either born with long, willowy legs or you
>aren't and there's no way you can make short, athletically built legs into
>Barbie Doll legs no matter how much weight you lose.  (Although, I am sure
>there are a number of guys who are interested in someting other than 
>Barbie Dolls.)

You know, I have been thinking about this. I picked up a TV guide, and
look what I found...

Ophrah
Roseanne
Murphy Brown
The Golden Girls
Married With Children (Peg may be top heavy, but she ain't the abovementioned)
Murder She Wrote (Was Angela Lansbury ideal long ago?)
Northern Exposure 
Most British Shows (except Benny Hill of course)
Perry Mason (Della Street was rather plain)

I see far more non-ideal women on television that not. I question this 
"body-type" argument, not the theory, but the reality.

>>payner@netcom.com
>
>Sharon 
>oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu
>

Rich

payner@netcom.com




Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women