orichalcum | Feminist Postings of the Day

Current Mood: awake

Entry tags:

Feminist Postings of the Day

1. A series of Flickr pictures of ordinary people and their BMIs and weight categorizations:
The interesting thing for me is that I would tend to categorize, looking at them, most of the "overweight" people as "healthy," the "normal" people as "thin," and the "underweight" people as "worrisome." "Obese" for me definitely comes across as "plump," but not, say, the stereotypical gamer or middle-aged academic build, which is, um, significantly larger than many of the folks described here as "morbidly obese". How do other folks react? I think it's entirely plausible that my viewpoint is heavily skewed by the sorts of people with whom I regularly interact - although I should add that I tend to think that most college student women come across as really thin to me. All of this makes me more skeptical of BMI measurements, particularly after the perfectly healthy

apintrix's recent comments on the subject.

2. New Study Establlshes Widespread Harassment and Discrimination against Women in Science and Engineering Fields:
No, Mr.Summers, it's not just because women aren't well suited for tech jobs. 75% of women aged 25-29 in these fields are given the top rating on performance evaluations, compared to 61% of men. By ages 35-40, 52% of them have dropped out of their profession. 63% of women in SET fields face sexual harassment. One woman, Josephine, who used the nickname "Finn," found that "Finn" received a much wider variety of emails, including useful career opportunities, than "Josephine" did.

What particularly frustrated me about this study is that one of the proposed solutions is doing things like tutoring women in executive leadership skills. And yes, that's important - but it reminds me of John McCain's comment on the Ledbetter pay discrimination bill that women needed more "education and training" rather than a guarantee of equal pay for equal work. Because, you see, the real problem is that women aren't as good as male workers - except they are. It's just that their male colleagues don't believe that.

3. Sulu (or rather, George Takei) announced he's marrying his partner of 21 years in Los Angeles next month! Yay!

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

1. I have No Sense At All of what people weigh. I was repeatedly surprised to see the height-and-weight numbers for those people.

2. Grrrrr.

3. Awwwww!

(My brain is on vacation. I can only have one intelligent thought per day, it seems. The rest is just incoherent noises.)

How is #3 a feminist posting? :)

On 1, I agree with your point and I think these labels are awful. And not helping. If you kill yourself to lose 100 pounds and then your doctor says you are still obese, it really doesn't encourage you to keep the weight off. A lot of these standards have become cruelly moving targets. OTOH, I think those pictures were clearly taken to make a point. When I look at the actual weight figures for some of them, I wonder how they possibly look as thin as they do in the picture. BMI ignores muscle/fat ratio, so if the picture takers went out of their way to get the small percentage of the population that has more muscle than fat, they are going to have misleading pics.

On 2, yes. But speaking as part of the target demo here, I think both you and McCain are missing one of the biggest issues--sociological factors. Women are driven out of the field by wanting to live reasonable lives and having stricter biological constraints on having children. Studies also show that women are disproportionately likely to leave a work situation because they don't find it to be positive or collegial. So yes, there is a ton of discrimination which is very real and needs to be fixed. But the sociological factors also need to be fixed so that a woman can have a reasonable career path in these fields and also have a life. Until that happens, getting rid of all direct discrimation is not going to create equal progression through the pipeline.

#3: I take the inclusive view of feminism - that it is about ensuring equal rights for everyone regardless of gender or sexuality. Just as I would champion the right of a man to be on the cheerleading squad, I celebrate George Takei's union with his partner.

#1: They're clearly not professional pictures, but certainly I don't know the precise source.

#2: Absolutely I think that the major fundamental changes that need to be made are sociological. But simply "training women" isn't going to address that aspect either. In some ways, going back to feminism, I think the first key is for men to realize that there is actually a problem, and we're still at that stage, sadly. Changing the career path structure is a long-term solution.

#3: Ah. I didn't make the gay-marriage-rights connection. I guess it's a good thing that my brain doesn't even want to think this is an issue?

#2: I completely agree with you about the stupidity of the "training women" plan. Training men, now that might get us somewhere.

re: 1: I think that's true, we need to know the sampling procedure. On the other hand: a good percentage of the "obese" people were visually curvy or actually fat, and only a few seemed to be muscle-men and women; whereas pretty much all the "overweight" people looked pretty healthy & normal to me as well. I think that says something.
I don't know, sometimes I think that in terms of body classification the eye is more powerful than the equation; and that the old scheme of body types (ectomorph/mesomorph/endomorph, with health relative to each type) is much more useful in understanding health and the body.

I think there's something wrong with a definition of obese that makes "curvy" and obese equivalent. Most of the "overweight" people in the pictures looked healthy and normal to me, too.

As far as BMI goes, it is a very rough tool. Every human being is different, which goes against the mania for characterization that we have.

I do not understand how a 5'4'', 155-pound triathlete could be classified as "overweight". There is simply something wrong with the BMI index if that's the case. I also commend those people in the photo collection for being willing to share intimate personal details with internet strangers.

Your link for #3 isn't showing up for me.

Sorry- couldn't find a link, and not posting from regular journal due to computer woes. :(

Re: link, try this one.

I think it's important to treat BMI as a rule of thumb rather than as an objective measurement of reality; if your BMI suggests your weight is unhealthy, probably you should look into that, but it's not like the numbers are appropriate targets for everybody. People have different proportions of muscle, fat, and bone, and people have different endocrine equilibria.

Also, I think labeling the range of BMI that they do "normal" undermines the exercise; I suspect the average American is probably overweight by BMI, and the fact that most people are not "normal" causes people to doubt the validity of the measure (as, indeed, you are above). My understanding is that the numbers are assigned based on statistical information about various ailments, not on the distribution of BMIs in the population. Something like "low-risk"/"moderate-risk"/"high-risk", etc. might be less counter-intuitive. (Interestingly, I've seen at least one source suggest that the "underweight" category may not mean anything, because the data may be skewed by people whose low BMI was caused by their ill health rather than vice versa.)

I lost a lot of my BMI-skepticism (or, at least, the portion that relates to the poor correlation of BMI to my perceptions of people) when I learned just how much weight I can lose before it actually starts to change the way I look. The way we look can encompass a wide range of weights and BMIs.

I also have to note that the photostream is putting a thumb on the scales; people at the high end of a range become "borderline overweight" or "1 lb shy of obese", while people at the very bottom of a range are just "overweight".

Yeah, I noticed that too.

I'm with Redhound here: it's a rule of thumb, and if you look on government websites, they clearly acknowledge how BMI goes wrong for people with low muscle fat, and for teens/children.

http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/public/heart/obesity/lose_wt/risk.htm

The factors at work are BMI + waist size + risk factors, although even they admit that you can get a more complete picture through even more tests. I think the confusion here is "high BMI = unhealthy" and "high BMI = unattractive", of which neither is necessarily true, and mixing the two senses can cause a lot of pain to people. So that lots of people who look normal/attractive could increase their health by losing weight is one of the things to take to heart here.

I agree with this way of looking at it. "Overweight" as a medical term is not meant to be derogatory; it's meant to suggest that you should consider whether it might be in your best interests to try to be healthier, possibly by losing some weight.

I'm sure that for some people these labels are discouragement. But they can work the other way. I know a woman who was quite overweight (using the layperson sense) and knew it. She wanted to be thinner but couldn't work up the motivation to do it. Then her doctor told her that she was, technically, 'morbidly obese'. She walked around for a few days repeating 'morbidly obese!' half jokingly and half in shock, and then started an extremely strict exercise routine at a gym with a trainer.

There's definitely a problem in practice when common-sense terms for things ('overweight,' 'depressed,' etc.) become technical medical terms. I wish they'd make sure to come up with new terms to avoid the confusion.

Seconding several points that have been made: the use of the label "normal" is stupid except as a normative pressure, because what it really means is "normal in the environment our bodies were designed for, ie, running around in the wild gathering roots and hunting things" not "normal in today's typical life environment." Also, these pictures: totally taken to make a point, which means a.) they are selecting toward people who are right on the lower bound of a category, making that category look thinner than it is on average, and b.) they're probably all "good" pictures of people who are dressing well for their figures - I know that how "good" a picture of me is can make 10 or 15 pounds of apparent difference, and I will also say that our geeky demographic often doesn't know how to dress well to suit its figure (which may make these people look thinner by comparison). When I account for those biases, and remind myself that "normal" is a normative term, not an attempt to capture the actual average, the categories seem reasonable to me. BMI categorizes me as right on the border between normal and overweight, and I think that's about right.

It is true that BMI doesn't have a good way for making allowances for bodybuilders or women with an unusually high breast-to-body ratio, so obviously one has to use it in the context of an informed understanding of the specifics of one's own body.

How is BMI something feminist either?

I apologize for the counter-rant, but I am so tired of the BMI rant. It's like getting offended if a doctor tells you that you are "vitamin-C deficient".

It's true, the labels of "overweight", "obese" etc are also used in conversational terms, and therefore carry meanings that the BMI scale is not meant to convey. And weight is tied up in a lot of things that aren't purely about health, like appearance and fitness.

But healthy weight does not equal fitness does not equal physical attractiveness. They are often related, though. I've seen plenty of overweight and even obese triathletes, who were obviously fit enough to complete a triathlon, but could be healthier if their weight was less.

I think those Flickr pictures are pretty accurate. Obviously the muscle-builders and the DD cups should adjust for their individual cases. Ditto what was said above: what is "normal" by meaning what Americans see in their peers is not "BMI normal" by what makes your body live the longest. It's not a value judgment, it's a statistical correlation.

As far as guessing BMIrating based on a picture, I think this is a good way to guess: if the elbows are the widest part of the arm, probably underweight. If you can't see the muscle structure in the upper arms or abdomen, the person is probably overweight. If there is "dimpling" at the elbows, knees, or a potbelly, that person is probably obese. If the person's middle is wider than their shoulders, probably morbidly obese.

5'7". 136 lbs. 21.3

About that statistical correlation, though—am I just imagining things, or did they actually do a study a couple years ago that found that, taken as a group, people in the "normal" BMI range had worse health outcomes than those in the "overweight" range? My interpretation at the time was that the statistically ideal BMI was somewhere substantially north of the middle of the "normal" range, but I didn't follow up particularly closely.

I believe that there have been some studies to that effect. However, trying to sort out the correct information is difficult. In particular, iirc, there are strong age related effects. Many elderly people are underweight, and being underweight and elderly makes people dramatically more vulnerable to trauma from falls. I believe that for some younger age groups, the cardiac risks correlated with being overweight are a bigger factor than the trauma risks.

Yes, but osteoporosis is cumulative. So that young person who is underweight is going to be an older person with a substantially built-up bone density deficit someday. You can't just tell them to start gaining weight when they're 75 and past the risk of dying young due to a heart attack.

Fair enough. I really have no dog in this fight. I also have no expertise in public health-- I was just trying to respond to holmes_iv's post with what I recalled hearing about the same studies. Whether BMI is really useful, somewhat useful, somewhat useful but with badly designed ranges, not at all useful, or something else entirely-- I don't really have an opinion.

I don't really have an opinion about BMI specifically either. My sister has done some work on this stuff (she has an MPH), but I don't really remember her conclusions. I just get upset at people putting all sorts of colloquial labels on other people based on a cheap, first-office-visit clinical measure.

Yeah, and the terminology associated with BMI is judgmental, so it's important to point out when the implicit health messages aren't correct. I also think that kind of language makes it easier for people to mask prejudice with concern for other's health. So freaking annoying.

I read something similar to that--something like because elderly digestion systems aren't very efficient, if you go into old age with some excess weight, you live longer than if you start out thin because you progressively lose weight in extreme old age. But you don't want to have that weight earlier in life because of the heart disease problem. So I intend to get all kinds of fat when I'm 65 or so.

Also, apparently, overweight men, and only men, were more likely to survive car accidents than normal or underweight men due, believe it or not, the pot belly.

It's entirely possible--people do studies all the time. One study doesn't invalidate all the previous data necessarily.

The BMI labels have been set based on the data from a variety of studies, and of course as new data becomes relevant, they can adjust the cutoffs.
http://www.who.int/bmi/index.jsp?introPage=intro_1.html

That reminds me...on NPR they had a study in some European country (don't remember which, I think it was Scandinavian) in which they found out that overweight people cost the health care system less. Because they died sooner.

Therefore obesity = good for your country's healthcare budget, bad for you. Kinda hard to legislate with that result.

Like smoking! Which hey, also reduces your weight. It all goes together.

My understanding is that the current aggregate of studies suggests that people in the overweight (but NOT obese and higher) categories live a bit longer on average than those in the normal category; however, their quality of life in later years is lower with a higher risk for chronic issues such as diabetes.

(deleted comment)

What I mean is that BMI body-image issues go for both men and women. I don't think it's necessarily a gendered thing. The images were of both men and women. And BMI specifially is about health, not body image, although the two are often related.
By muscle structure, I don't mean you should be able to see a ripped six pack, I mean you should be able to tell where the muscles are. Normal BMI does not mean you don't have enough fat to support reproduction.

Sorry, I was being incoherent. I find the topic inherently upsetting. I'm no expert on the BMI studies, but I frankly find it hard to believe that it isn't gendered. Most health things are. And the medical studies industry is famous for not bothering to include enough female subjects in their studies.

's okay, I understand.

I guess I just wish people didn't get upset about something meant to be helpful. It's unfortunate that our society puts so much importance on the precise amount of fat one has on one's body regardless of actual health.

Oh yeah -tests like "can you walk up 6 flights of stairs without stopping" seem much more relevant to me.

So, while body-image is important for both men and women, I think it's a much larger psychological issue for most women (there's an interesting article in the NYT on how subordinate monkeys eat fatty treats and feel better, but when subordinate female office workers eat fatty treats, they briefly feel better and then feel guilty.) So in that context I (and a large number of feminist scholars) see it as a feminist issue -because it's a way in which women tend to dis themselves/be dissed by others.

On a related note, anyone else notice a massive increase in catcalling since the weather got better? I swear, guys, when you're hooting at a 30-year-old plumpish mom walking her dog...(yes, I was wearing a low-ish cut shirt, because CP and i were going out to dinner, but...)

I wonder what the right range is for supporting reproduction, actually?

Mostly, my point was that this Flickr site provided a way for me to see a disjunction between BMI and my own concepts of attractive body image; jdw and contrariety and others are totally correct that the next step is not "Aha,BMI is wrong; I will eat as much ice cream as I want!" but rather "BMI is about health, roughly, and that's different from average attractiveness, esp. as BMI normal /= average (which turns out to be size 14 for U.S. women)."

There's also an interesting separate issue here, which is that doctors are explicitly valuing length of life over all other considerations. (I know that extremely low-calorie diets are said to extend life, for instance.) Personally, I'd be happy to sacrifice, say, the years 87-90 in return for 8 decades of occasional really yummy food cooked in lots of butter.

I was going to mention that--apparently studies have been done that if you fast one day a week you can extend your life. Um, hello, I'll pass! :) It's a hard balancing act that an individual human has to make--how do you balance lifespan with living an enjoyable life and where do you set your own "price point"?

And most of these studies are done on mice anyway.

Yeah, I'm totally unwilling to do the extra-low calorie diet either.

As far as body fat, men can get down to 2-3% before their brain gets starved for fat and dies (bodybuilders try to get down to this a few days before a show, then gain it back right away). Women are more like 12%. But they stop menstruating around 15-18% I think.

It's just so impossible to separate the health concerns from the body image/attractiveness concerns.

I wonder what the right range is for supporting reproduction, actually?

It's been a while, but I was fascinated by this back in my undergrad days. I remember reading one study that implied the loss of fat mattered as well as the absolute amount. It looked at women who started a workout regimen and it showed that women who lost 20% of their body fat stoped ovulating, but began again after a period of adjustment whether they regained the fat it or not. Then it went to theorize about the evolutionary benefits of this.

Are you saying that you think that the current average (mean) weight or size should be a guideline for figuring out what a 'normal' (healthy) BMI should be? Or are you just commenting on the disparity between the two?

We currently live in a country where the cheapest and most available food is usually not so healthy. So it's definitely possible to have a national average size that is not a healthy size. (I'm not arguing against the idea that sexist assumptions and beliefs can affect standards for health but I don't think that fact means the standards are necessarily totally wrong.)

Just commenting on the disparity but also the disparity between "healthy" and "reasonably attractive," mainly, although yes, our national average size is probably not healthy.

On a related note, anyone else notice a massive increase in catcalling since the weather got better?

YES. I was on the bike, wearing a hoodie and capris, and a HELMET FOR GOODNESS SAKE. Really wanted to say to them, "don't hoot at what you can't catch!" and speed away, but I ride by that construction site every day... and seriously? Smoochy noises? What are you, twelve?

Obviously the muscle-builders and the DD cups should adjust for their individual cases.

Thank you. That's pretty much why I ignore BMI as a gauge for my own health, and merely think of it as "interesting to note".

Outlaw, currently in crazy bike shape, having cycled at least 1.5 hours each of the last four days, and also, "overweight".

Heh heh...I suppose one could weigh a boob and subtract to find one's "real" BMI.

Hang on, let me get my kitchen scale!

Pretty sure I beat you - but I'm still nursing, so that's cheating.

I think this is a good way to guess

I agree, though even there, mileage varies: elbow = widest part, but I'm at "normal for patient" insofar as I find it difficult to keep much more weight than this on me.

5'4, 109 lbs; no idea what my BMI is, but I have great walking muscles, little upper-body strength, and almost no breasts. Uh, thanks, genetic inheritance? (Highest weight was 118; low at this height / age 14 was 95; never dieted, and it pisses me off mightily that some people have assumed I'm anorexic/bulimic.)

BMI=18.9. On the very low end of normal for you. Which is probably what I would have guessed.

But I'd also have guessed you taller!

I also have the problem of keeping muscle mass on my upper body. My legs are perfectly happy to beef up, but my arms just won't no matter how many weights I lift.

But Contoriety and Redhound beat me to it.

BMI is a guideline, and a poorly named one at that.

As for pictures, the first 35 lbs I lost were largely unnoticed by my clothing size and my pictures: it was the last 10 lbs that got me into really teeny clothes AND tipped me into the "right" BMI.

That said, just losing 15 lbs and keeping that modest amount of weight off would have done a lot of good things for me.

In addition to the observations above (esp. the "flattering shot" ones), I also noticed that a number of the women were really tall. In my experience, tall women wear their weight really well. I have no data to back this up.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Feminist Postings of the Day

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

I totally had something to say about this

no subject