Woman aims for 1,000 pound weight goal

[Apocalipstic]

I agree that if Donna were starving herself, it would not be an issue.

The issue is that the media and most people I know, including other fat people are fat phobic.

This is a news story because Donna is fat. Really fat, and not embarrassed about it.

[Selenay]

Originally Posted by apocalipstic

I agree that if Donna were starving herself, it would not be an issue.

The issue is that the media and most people I know, including other fat people are fat phobic.

This is a news story because Donna is fat. Really fat, and not embarrassed about it.

I think apocalipstic is completely right.

If this headline was, instead, "87 pound woman starving herself to be thinnest woman alive" we'd be having a hugely different conversation--even though many of the health risks (heart attack, weakness, inability to move) are similar for being hugely over or underweight.

[Andrew, Jr.]

I have mixed feelings on this topic. I am heavy. I have Diabetes, and have had a heart attack. I also have glaucoma, & floaters in my eyes. I have struggled for the last 8 years with my weight. I am judged every single day I am in public. I hate it. I am perceived as a fat person, and not a human being. There is a difference. The next time you go out in public, look around at those around you. Look at how they are starring at you. That speaks volumes.

As for this woman aimming to gain weight...for publicity. And she has children. That is not sitting well with me.

[Random]

Originally Posted by apocalipstic

I agree that if Donna were starving herself, it would not be an issue.

The issue is that the media and most people I know, including other fat people are fat phobic.

This is a news story because Donna is fat. Really fat, and not embarrassed about it.

I don't know about that... Think about all the flack that thin *Stars* get for being too skinny...

I don't think people would be talking about having her kids removed if she was going for the record of being the most under weight...

[Rufusboi]

I've been watching the new Kirsti Alley show on A&E. There was drama leading up to her weigh in. The whole show is about her losing weight again. It turns out she only weighs 230lbs. To me, that is average. I don't know, but I was just amazed that all this fuss was being made about someone who is 230lbs. And then I thought how sad that the gossip mags say such horrible things about her and it is all related to her weight. As an actress she has to be about 110lbs and look emaciated to be "pretty." The whole show just reveals how sick our society is when it comes to women and weight and beauty. Rufus

[Gemme]

Originally Posted by apocalipstic

I agree that if Donna were starving herself, it would not be an issue.

The issue is that the media and most people I know, including other fat people are fat phobic.

This is a news story because Donna is fat. Really fat, and not embarrassed about it.

Originally Posted by Selenay

I think apocalipstic is completely right.

If this headline was, instead, "87 pound woman starving herself to be thinnest woman alive" we'd be having a hugely different conversation--even though many of the health risks (heart attack, weakness, inability to move) are similar for being hugely over or underweight.

Originally Posted by Random

I don't know about that... Think about all the flack that thin *Stars* get for being too skinny...

I don't think people would be talking about having her kids removed if she was going for the record of being the most under weight...

I agree with Random, mostly. Yes, we are a fat-phobic nation. Yes, this...in part...makes news because she is a larger person. Yes, I think that if someone made the announcement (whether only "for her fans" or not) that they wanted to lose so much weight that it would be unhealthy for them and put them in danger and their kids at risk of losing their mother, that the media would jump on it too.

I do think there tends to be more anger associated with this than there would be for someone going the opposite direction. Think "Oh, that poor woman! What is she trying to do to herself?" versus what has been said here about Donna.

To say, though, that someone with young children who still need their mother starving herself would 'not be an issue' cheats all of us and takes our humanity away. I'm an ass a lot of the time, I admit, but I don't like being tossed into a group of supposed non-feeling people so easily. That irks me.

Someone doing something harmful to their body is fine. It's their choice. Someone doing something that will kill them and will kill them IN FRONT OF THEIR CHILDREN, day by day, is extraordinarily sad and painful no matter if they are wasting away or eating themselves to death.

[Apocalipstic]

Originally Posted by Gemme

I agree with Random, mostly. Yes, we are a fat-phobic nation. Yes, this...in part...makes news because she is a larger person. Yes, I think that if someone made the announcement (whether only "for her fans" or not) that they wanted to lose so much weight that it would be unhealthy for them and put them in danger and their kids at risk of losing their mother, that the media would jump on it too.

I do think there tends to be more anger associated with this than there would be for someone going the opposite direction. Think "Oh, that poor woman! What is she trying to do to herself?" versus what has been said here about Donna.

To say, though, that someone with young children who still need their mother starving herself would 'not be an issue' cheats all of us and takes our humanity away. I'm an ass a lot of the time, I admit, but I don't like being tossed into a group of supposed non-feeling people so easily. That irks me.

Someone doing something harmful to their body is fine. It's their choice. Someone doing something that will kill them and will kill them IN FRONT OF THEIR CHILDREN, day by day, is extraordinarily sad and painful no matter if they are wasting away or eating themselves to death.

Think about it this way?

My family had me on crazy diets starting at age 7. One after another.

I was not fat to start out with, but I sure am now.

Its OK that we don't agree about the kids being taken away, but we need a way larger pool of people with no food issues ready to help, if we start taking away the children of people with unhealthy eating issues. Wayyyyy more. And then, what if we remove them from their home and they are abused worse in the system, like so many are.

I just think its sad all around. The expecatations we have of other people, how children are treated, hormones and gross stuff in foods....all of it. Very depressing.

[Soft*Silver]

http://www.youtube.com/user/MuggleSa...78/fULtU2NfPQA

[Apocalipstic]

Originally Posted by Random

I don't know about that... Think about all the flack that thin *Stars* get for being too skinny...

I don't think people would be talking about having her kids removed if she was going for the record of being the most under weight...

I agree, I have never heard talk of removing people's kids for being too thin.

Too fat stuff makes me twitch.

[SuperFemme]

I've got nothing.

[Medusa]

I need to dig up an article because I seem to recall that Texas (?) had an initiative on the ballot a few years back about how people who were deemed "too fat" couldnt adopt or foster children.

Lemme see if I can find it

[SuperFemme]

Gary Stocklaufer weighs 500 pounds. He said a family court judge ruled this week that he wasn't fit enough to be an adoptive father."It's out-and-out discrimination," Stocklaufer said.Stocklaufer is a state-certified foster parent. He and his wife, Cynthia, had taken in baby Max from a cousin who couldn't raise him.

The couple also has an adopted son named Bobby.Stocklaufer said he and his wife wanted to formally adopt Max, so they went to family court and expected quick approval.They didn't get it.

"We had Max for three months. He was taken away around the 13th of last month," Stocklaufer said. "He means the world to us, and our world has been taken out from underneath of us."

Stocklaufer said his weight should remain immaterial to his being an adoptive father."I mean, if I'm able to be a licensed foster care parent and we've had lots of kids in this home, then why would I not be able to adopt my own cousin?" Stocklaufer said. "We tried to follow all the legal steps, not knowing my weight would ever be an issue."

The ruling has shaken the couple's faith in the state's system."We're hurt, sad, frustrated," Cynthia Stocklaufer said. "We've tried to raise our child to believe the justice system will work for you.""

"We understand they're out for the best interest of the child, but the state should not have this kind of authority," Stocklaufer said.

Coincidentally, the judge who ruled Stocklaufer unfit is the same judge who allowed the adoption of Bobby seven years ago.Meanwhile, Stocklaufer said he plans to continue fighting to get Max back.

A representative of the Jackson County Family court said she couldn't comment on the case because of children's privacy laws.

Late Thursday afternoon, the 16th Judicial Circuit Court of Missouri released a statement that said: "Missouri law restricts the disclosure of any information in adoption cases to very specific circumstances. Court files, records and information in adoption proceedings are closed and, aside from the parties in the case, can only be released by court order."

"The particular case that you are inquiring about is still an ongoing case. Additional proceedings may still occur in the case. While the petitioners are free to talk about the case, court personnel cannot discuss any of the facts involved in the proceeding."

"Under Missouri law, the court is required to consider the welfare and best interests of the child when determining whether or not an adoption should be approved, which is a complicated determination ... Factors to be considered include the petitioner's educational, financial, marital, medical and psychological status and criminal background check."

http://www.wmortv32.com/family/13767506/detail.html

[SuperFemme]

Here is a better breakdown of the story:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=3429655&page=1

[EnderD_503]

Originally Posted by Apocalipstic

I agree, I have never heard talk of removing people's kids for being too thin.

Too fat stuff makes me twitch.

I disagree with both of you and the comparisons made here about what would happen if a woman decided to try to become the most underweight woman on record. I would actually argue that society deems women who are anorexic and bulimic as more mentally and physically ill than a woman like the subject of this topic who is trying to achieve the 1000 lbs mark. Both anorexia and bulimia have been pathologized to a far greater extent than obesity as far as the medical community is concerned, in much the same way as self-mutilation and other inflictions of bodily harm and self-deprivation. If a mother were attempting to become the most underweight woman on record while also being the mother of young children, I honestly think they would have removed the children from her long ago and hospitalized her, because anorexia and bulimia are taken seriously as severe illnesses.

In comparison, something like excessive eating to the point of what this woman is trying to achieve is considered by society and medical community more along the lines of a "lifestyle choice" that someone has control over rather than a serious compulsion or illness. This is, of course, entirely the fault of society, its traditions and the way it has always deemed self-deprivation as a form of punishment on the body vs. over-indulgence as simply the inability to control "cravings." Of course, that is the result of a severe misunderstanding of why people either eat excessively or deprive themselves of food. But I do think it's dangerous to pit one against the other (overeating vs. bulimia/anorexia). Both are equally severe and its very important to recognise that, imo. But I see the opposite happen on this forum a lot when it comes to these discussions about weight. Because people have been hurt by society's negative stereotypes and behaviours towards those who don't fit the narrow social stereotype of "beauty," (here I mean that North American society seems to think that certain weights and body types are "more attractive" than others. It's totally wrong, imo, but don't know how else to express society's stereotypes/rigid perspectives that affect everyone negatively. Or even if we talk about methods of dress/self-presentation etc. Society always wants people to fit that rigid "role" that I think the queer community often defies.) they seem to exaggerate society's support for excessively thin women. Yet society is also extremely unkind to thin women, and I think it's wrong to assume that an anorexic woman wouldn't have her children taken away. In fact many anorexic mothers have had exactly that happen, because it was believed that their inability to feed themselves would negatively affect their ability to feed their children.

There is definitely a "range" that society has created, where people on either end, either "too thin" or "too big" get a lot of shit for being who they are and I don't think either side should be alienated from the other. Body image and negative social judgement is something both face perhaps more severely than other portions of the North American population, and should face together, imo.