Cormcolash
Well-Known Member
There's a rake in there that I just never thought about, like that Washington lad for instance.
Can't bate the Chaplins though.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
There's a rake in there that I just never thought about, like that Washington lad for instance.
Hmm I dunno about "strong". Feels to me like it's trying to shoehorn some measurements into an overarching story of oppression, without really managing to identify who the oppressor isThis is a strong piece on the economics of thinness
It upends even our more recent understanding of why poor people are fat, and ties a lot of things together including the shift toward 'wellness' over dieting and the persistence of an ideal size/shape for women
Hmm I dunno about "strong". Feels to me like it's trying to shoehorn some measurements into an overarching story of oppression, without really managing to identify who the oppressor is
(pdf worked btw)
If we're all guilty, and it's not clear how to change things, then I don't know how any of this is useful or meaningful
The comments on the IG story are a testament to how deep this bias runsIf we're all guilty, and it's not clear how to change things, then I don't know how any of this is useful or meaningful
Thank you for the article, and I mean that.The most striking thing for me was the proposition that poor people aren't fat because they're poor, they're poor because they're fat.
Listen, I have a strong dislike for Jia T also, but she's given the issue considerable thought and the quote on the persistence of the ideal is well-taken - or I think so anywaysThank you for the article, and I mean that.
It ties together many of my least favourite things, The Economist in general, Roxane Gay, and Jia Tolentino being treated as an oracle.
I agree with your conclusion, because it's the same conclusion The Economist always comes to, whether it's about Ireland in the 1840s, or poor people in 2022: "These people are poor because of a moral failing on their part and the solution is to change nothing because nothing can change. Look at these graphs which prove nothing can change."
You either buy into it at a fundamental level or you don't. I'm gonna finish reading 500 years of economic history in about 20 years and get back to you with my own conclusions.
I actually quite like her stuff! She's great at distilling what's in the air, and a fine, eh, stylist. I just don't like how people treat her stuff like she has it all figured out! I certainly don't get that from her work myself.Listen, I have a strong dislike for Jia T also, but she's given the issue considerable thought and the quote on the persistence of the ideal is well-taken - or I think so anyways
Hey, I'm allowed complain about the people being used in the article!I jave next to zero time for Roxane Gay, but she's in the piece partly because the onset of her obesity was after a horrific sexual assault - which really doesn't put any moral failing on her whatsoever.
Yes, i do think that is the thesis, and I think that's precisely what the job of the Economist is, to deflect any criticism of laizzes faire economics elsewhere, in this case into vaguely undefined patriarchy. The job of this piece is to stop people blaming capitalism, as you say yourself.The piece has no explanation for the explosion of obesity in the 80s (no one does) but what it's saying (by my reading) is that the physical, emotional and financial costs are being suffered by mostly poor women, and that society has not even figured out how to alleviate these costs.
Very simply put, the thesis I get is that we have gone from blaming individuals to blaming capitalism (creating poor people who get fat), when it's really the patriarchy (punishing fat people into poverty) - which is kind of back to where we started.
It's a 21st century version, to handwring and say, as this piece concludes, "the tragedy is that there is no escape." The whole thing is premised on the idea that the system cannot be changed, and we can all feel bad about it, and castigate ourselves over it, but we sure as hell can't change it.I really get no reading of this where the writer puts a moral failing on obese people.
Eh the rise of ever more easily accessed takeaway junk food coupled with ever less physically active jobs?The piece has no explanation for the explosion of obesity in the 80s (no one does)
All sorts of theories, including that, but no smoking gun. But also increased automation of everything, hormones in food, chemicals in food, portion sizes, more driving/less walking, high fructose corn syrup, less time spent on PE in schools etc etc etcEh the rise of ever more easily accessed takeaway junk food coupled with ever less physically active jobs?
Upgrade your account now to disable all ads...
Upgrade nowWe use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.