Comments on: Fat is a Feminist Issue

By: Surviving feminism? « New Media and Contemporary Queer/Feminist Activism in UK (and beyond)

Mon, 14 Sep 2009 13:08:06 +0000

[...] ‘feminist issue’ brings up predominately body image pages: mainly related to the book ‘fat is a feminist issue’, then make-up, not surprisingly prostitution, recently (and due to euro-elections& the BNP [...]

By: “coming out” as fat « Ample Proportions

“coming out” as fat « Ample Proportions — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 18:20:28 +0000

[...] segregation, i.e. I’m one of 3 people of color involved in a group of 20-40 people, but fat is a feminist issue and I think my (wonderful and supportive) already-existing feminist community could stand to be [...]

By: Susa

Susa — Thu, 07 May 2009 18:49:42 +0000

Since women generally have a longer life expectency then men, shouldn’t the judges all be female? I mean, on average they live longer…

By: International No-Diet Day « Women In Pants

International No-Diet Day « Women In Pants — Wed, 06 May 2009 16:47:09 +0000

[...] bringing up the weight of potential Supreme Court nominees in an effort to disqualify them? That’s not being sexist (since they’re only an issue for female potential appointees), [...]

By: prefer not to say

prefer not to say — Wed, 06 May 2009 14:35:23 +0000

Two words as far as health and getting the nod to a major political office goes: Dick Cheney.

Oh, and two more words: John McCain.

By: Tom Foolery

Tom Foolery — Wed, 06 May 2009 12:14:26 +0000

Tom Foolery, of course we want someone who will be good at this. But just like with any other job, you want someone with staying power.

I’m a little late on the response here, but I’m not implying that the only consideration is their ability to avoid dying for as long as possible — obviously, slavish partisan loyalty is important to both sides, too.

What I am saying is that no matter how good someone is on the party’s issues, their health will be a key factor in determining whether they get the nom. Which, as someone mentioned is pretty much discrimination, no?

By: jj

jj — Wed, 06 May 2009 03:09:46 +0000

“Tom Foolery, of course we want someone who will be good at this. But just like with any other job, you want someone with staying power. For a lifetime appointment, you want someone who iwll have time to hone their skills. There’s also something to be said for consistency — that’s one of the reasons why the supreme court has lifetime members. The law needs to be reliable, and its application needs to be predicable. If we have an oft-rotating group of justices, predictability decreases and the whole system is less stable.”

This sound like what people say when they don’t want to hire women (they may get pregnant and take too much time off…we need our employees to be reliable, having a temp come in for a few months to a year for every woman who wants to give birth decreases stability of the workforce…), or the disabled, or older adults. It’s called discrimination.

By: jj

jj — Wed, 06 May 2009 03:02:53 +0000

I’m kind of shocked to read that people think it is okay to factor in health in considering hiring someone. I know that this is a lifelong appointment and, yes, of course we would want someone who could serve for a long time, but that shouldn’t equal stripping away their privacy and considering someone’s health. Do you think it is okay to look through someone’s medical records before hiring them? If taking health into consideration is okay, then it should be okay to mandate a physical, full access to one’s medical records and get the opinions of several doctors. Honestly, if one was to take health into consideration, I would prefer this was done, because it’s the only way to actually know ANYTHING about the person’s health. You know absolutely nothing by looking at them. And if health is to be taken into consideration, does that mean we could do genetic testing to see if they are predisposed to health problems? And well, you know black people are predisposed to high blood pressure and type 2 diabetes, and poor people in general are more likely to have poorer health. Forget anybody with congenital but treatable heart defects or disabilities in general since they live shorter lives. And we can say well, OF COARSE we shouldn’t discriminate against them, but if you allow for a nebulus “health and longevity” as being appropriate to consider, then you kind of are allowing for discrimination.

By: Meowser

Meowser — Tue, 05 May 2009 23:21:42 +0000

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but other than genetics and fool luck, MONEY and AGE (and of course, not being subjected to daily withering hatred on account of what you look like) are still the best predictors of longevity and health (that is, health good enough to serve as a SCOTUS judge, which as far as I know is still a sedentary profession).

ANYONE can get cancer or another serious illness; I’ve known my share of thin health nuts who have had to fight for their lives a lot younger than the fat-haters would ever admit. Just this weekend, Vegas headliner Danny Gans, who was thin and by all accounts also a health nut, died of natural causes at age 52. Why we tie longevity to virtue when there’s relatively little connection, I do not understand.

And like Paul Campos said in his Daily Beast article, even if you’re going by bullshit BMI, if you want someone with the BEST possible chance of living past 80, you pick a woman Sotomayor’s size. (And for gods’ sake, Sotomayor has TYPE 1 diabetes, which has no correlative link to fat AT ALL.)

I can see not putting someone on the court who has already developed a truly life-threatening illness like a late-stage cancer. But predicting who’s going to HAVE a late-stage cancer? I mean, ever in their lives? Good luck with THAT.

By: Femmostroppo Reader - May 6, 2009 — Hoyden About Town

Femmostroppo Reader - May 6, 2009 — Hoyden About Town — Tue, 05 May 2009 23:00:23 +0000

[...] Fat is a Feminist Issue [...]