Comments on: Have a Conversation Over Dinner, Risk Obesity

By: Andy Mitchell

Andy Mitchell — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 02:22:28 +0000

“First of all, people who are fat or “obese” aren’t necessarily less healthy, more prone to disease, or at risk to die earlier”

That might be what sociologists believe. Medical doctors, who actually treat diseases, disagree. I know who I believe on this issue.

By: Fernando

Fernando — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 23:25:31 +0000

So the health in fat people is damage by other people’s reactions, they are not to blame for anything at all and trying to campaign against unhealthy lifestyles is bad because it hurts people’s feelings?

I understand that there are many things that can contribute to a person being overweight, but that doesn’t mean a person is clear of responsability.

By: withoutscene

withoutscene — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 18:22:19 +0000

Oh, there is so much going on here. First of all, people who are fat or “obese” aren’t necessarily less healthy, more prone to disease, or at risk to die earlier. Correlation is not causation. A classic sociology example is that just because robberies go up when people eat more ice cream doesn’t mean that ice cream causes robberies. It’s summer. Even if fat people do tend to be less healthy, why would that be? The automatic assumption is that it’s because of the fat…or it’s because of the sedentary/overeating life that they obviously lead because they are fat. So the idea is that sedentary lifestyle causes both fatness and “unhealth”. But hello, that ignores a million other factors that a) could cause fatness and b) that could cause “unhealth”. Fat people’s health is affected by the stigma and discrimination they face, and this stuff is documented in the literature. Shaming, which fat people generally face on a daily basis, is connected with a lower likelihood to engage in “healthy” behaviors. Doctors give fat people a lower quality of health care. Fat people don’t go in for preventative care. Do these things not affect health outcomes? Can we have an accurate model without including these factors (and others)? I mean, it’s all so ridiculous. Latino/as tend to be poorer proportionally, as do African Americans. If you’re working two jobs, when do you have time to work out? Can you afford to put your kids in sports? Do you have time to deal with that? Is your community safe enough to let your children play? What kinds of foods are most affordable? Hmn, and with fat people of color we have added stigma that is ALSO known to have an effect on health, both on the micro and macro levels. And I’m not even getting into the various proposed causes of fatness, which are many, many beyond “sedentary/overeating”.

And finally, this isn’t scary or harmful? How about to the fat kids who see themselves in these pictures because that’s what their bodies look like and the message is that their bodies are bad and horrible and no one should want to be that way? And unless they can escape those bodies they are bad and horrible? And at the same time we ignore eating disorders among minorities because we assume they do not exist, since they are mostly a bunch of fatties and could stand to lose the weight. I mean, really. Not to mention that then kids will look at my body and judge me. Don’t worry, they are getting the message.

By: Links « Stuff

Links « Stuff — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 09:52:22 +0000

[…] Now this is a fucking bad ad campaign. […]

By: Dinner converstaions | Respiratory blog

Dinner converstaions | Respiratory blog — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 08:58:24 +0000

[…] Sociological Images » HAVE A CONVERSATION OVER DINNER, RISK OBESITY […]

By: Dr. Robert Runte

Dr. Robert Runte — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 04:17:30 +0000

The more fundamental problem with this campaign, along with others targeted to childhood obesity, is that it’s an example of ‘blaming the victim.’ The hegemonic ideology in our society is to focus always on individuals rather than social structures — if kids are obese, it’s THEIR problem because they are eating the wrong foods and playing on computers etc rather than exercising. So the solution is to target their “awareness” of their wrong choices.

But if we take one step back from these failed individuals, we find a gigantic corporate structure asking them if they want fries with that and offering to supersize their sugary drinks. Even at this level, I can’t understand how hanging a few posters or running the occasional psa showing kids how bad these choices are is supposed to counteract this multibillion dollar advertizing campaign enticing kids to eat poorly?

But ultimately, even the corporations are not to blame here — we need to look at the larger structures that create situations were kids are age segregated all day,no longer part of an extended family, let alone brought up by ‘the village’. But nobody wants to talk about work-family conflict, or post-industrial structures in advanced monopoly capitalism, when you can just point at a fat kid and say, “Just say no!”

By: Cecil

Cecil — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 03:43:16 +0000

I find it interesting that they used toys that model very strict gender body ideals. Barbie as we all know is impossibly proportioned and Superman has become over the years truly a super man in the size of his muscles (biceps, shoulders, etc.).
Why did the advertisers choose to use these particular two models that represent unrealistic body types, then make them fat to even further reinforce the idea that if you are not this body type, you are unacceptable.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 01:38:46 +0000

I really don’t think these are so bad. I mean, this is the Active Life Movement, and it seems to me that they are about campaigning against sedentary lifestyles generally. Using toys and colourful imagery would more likely appeal to kids which may encourage a discussion with their parents.

I really don’t think this is trying to scare kids – look at the tone of the message! There is nothing threatening or scary about it!

By: Fernando

Fernando — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 23:58:24 +0000

How is the ad saying “watch TV, use your computer, or have conversations (?). “? It is just showing overweight people in situations that are easily related to obesity (sendetary behavior). It doesn’t campaign against watching tv, or anything specific, it campaigns against sedentarity.

I mean, who the hell would run an ad against conversations or computers? Makes no sense. The ad is just a way of saying “don’t do this all day or you’ll end up like that”.

By: Penny

Penny — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:28:55 +0000

I thought the same thing, Chuk, so I wrote one:
http://disstud.blogspot.com/2009/02/cerrie-burnells-arm.html

By: chuk

chuk — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:14:34 +0000

That’s pretty fascinating. The CBeebies story (follow the link in Am-Chau’s comment above) could probably be a post on its own.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 20:56:55 +0000

There’s an article up at Wiretap magazine that talks about this advertising and its relationship to childhood obesity among Latino youth.

http://www.wiretapmag.org/blogs/race/44029

By: Titanis walleri

Titanis walleri — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 20:36:27 +0000

The third picture is Playmobil, incidentally.

By: Vidya

Vidya — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 13:58:49 +0000

“All of those would (presumably) accomplish the goals of the Active Life Movement…”
The thing is, if the ‘aim’ of the movement is really to reduce/eliminate fat people, they wouldn’t. Granted, movement, healthy food, etc, would certainly benefit everyone’s health, but they certainly wouldn’t turn naturally fat kids into thin ones.

By: Tom Adams

Tom Adams — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:49:22 +0000

@Am-Chau That’s terrible. I know how heartbreaking it is to scare kids unintentionally (I have a beard). She really doesn’t need these horrible “concerned” parents making it worse.

Kids need to see as many different-looking people as possible as early as possible. These concerned parents are an excellent example of what happens if they don’t.