TV Teens and Fat: "The Facts of Life"

When I feel depressed, I like to unwind with some good wholesome family fun. Well, maybe not "good" in the same sense as, say, The Sopranos is a good show. More like mediocre, average, non-offensive stuff. Life gets complex, and I want something soothing that tells me it's manageable.

I discovered Facts of Life a few nights ago on Youtube whilst looking for cheesy family show theme songs. It's cheesy, but not the worst of the lot; I'd say much better than the annoying Full House that seems to be more about the grown ups than the kids. Anyhow, I'm hooked. It makes me feel joyful to watch it. I also enjoy the fact that the show is over and I can check out any season I like, seeing their changes over the years.

I came upon this video where three of the main actors discuss the show briefly, years later. They mention weight, and it makes me sad.



Lisa Whelchel, who played the "pretty girl", was pressured to stay thin, and she seems to accept this as a fact of the job:

"That was their job. They hired me to play a certain role, and I was outgrowing that role. They tried to provide  me with a nutritionist and trainer, things I would LOOVE now, but I was sixteen and didn't quite appreciate it." 

I'm not liking what she says here. Maybe I'm jumping into conclusions, but isn't she saying that they had every right to ask her to lose weight, and that she was silly and stubborn enough to be against it? It's like she realizes now how important skinniness is and wishes someone would give her a free nutritionist and trainer. If that's what she means, I feel bad for her. Not surprised, really, if this is the pressure she grew up with, but sad that she has discovered the "truth" of skinniness instead of the joy of self-acceptance.

It's kind of tragic that she had to fit in the mold of "Blair" growing up, instead of being Lisa. I question the need for Blair's character to stay the same. If she was outgrowing the role, maybe they should have realized the show needs to end or the character could actually change and grow. Wasn't the show all about growing up and learning about life? I find Blair pretty annoying, watching the clips, and feel like a lot more could have been done with her. Apparently the writers had no such ambitions. People want pretty rich bitch, they should get pretty rich bitch.

Interestingly, the "fat" girl Mindy Cohn was told to gain weight one year when she had been "getting active". That's almost as bad as what they did with Whelchel. If she was growing up and getting leaner, naturally and of her own accord, couldn't they let her do that? Some fat girls grow up to be slim girls and vice versa. Maybe it would have been positive to show that to teenage girls watching the show? Not to mention what it must do to a girl's self esteem to be "the fat girl" in a show. Granted, judging by the clips I saw, Natalie was fairly positively depicted and her weight wasn't much of an issue. But the underlying idea of being "the fat one" - plus the comments she must have gotten from viewers - might easily be harmful. If I had had that over my head as a kid, I would have hated myself.

But then - I did hate myself. I wasn't shown in millions of homes, but I wasn't free. I wasn't allowed to have my baby fat, my teenage chubbiness, or later my grown-up fatness in peace. Nor was anyone else. There were mothers, gym teachers and school nurses; there were magazine doctors giving out diet advice. I remember us worrying about being "overweight". Someone was always on a diet, and there was much jiggling and tummy-flattening in front of the mirrors. The "I'm fat" - "No, you're thin, I'm the one who's fat!" conversations were constant. It would have been a bit weird and unacceptable to NOT hate our body.

In fact, you know what I find unrealistic about teen girl shows? That they talk so little about dieting. There may be a very special episode about eating disorders, where everyone's secret self-loathing is revealed, but the rest of the time, they're preoccupied by other things entirely. I wish it really were like that: weight being one of life's issues, but not the major one that looms behind everything else.

Heal the World? Nah, Let's just Blame the Parents.

Discussions on childhood obesity tend to run in predictable ways. One of the things I hate most about them is how they ignore the societal issues behind eating fast food.

A recent example is an article found in the Pundit, written by Deborah Coddington and titled "Fight Obesity - Nationalise the Dairies!" Apparently the title is a cynical one, and her main concern here is that nationalizing anything is terrible and everything is up to the individual's own choices. Obviously, she feels she is the voice of reason in suggesting something as novel as - parents being responsible for their children's food choices. Wow. This sounds common sense and even smart, if you look at it on the surface level. Which is why I feel like writing about it and breaking down why it's NOT smart at all.

The Secondary Principals' Association of New Zealand (Spanz) – no less – wants restrictions on what dairies near schools can sell during certain hours.
We're talking about food here, folks – possibly fizzy drinks, chippies, pies, lollies, ice creams. Stuff that, if eaten sensibly, in moderation, will not do you any harm at all.

"Sensibly", "in moderation", being the operative words here. Because we all have the same idea of what they mean, and because we all know fatties do not eat moderately. Mind you, I give her credit for saying that it's OK to eat these foods. Or I would, if she didn't undo her own point later by suggesting that parents not give their children money for this type of food.

Then comes the big slap in the face at poor people:

Not so poor, though, that they can't afford to buy the odd pie or ten.

Poor people! They're not really poor, they just waste all their money on junk food. That's why they're so fat. This is where the class stuff comes in and Coddington gleefully and almost proudly glosses all over it. In most countries, junk food really is cheaper than "healthy" food. Many poor people actually have to work long hours at their low-paid jobs, sometimes work two or three jobs to support their families. The fact that they don't have the time or money to prepare nutritious meals is actually completely natural. It's an inevitable fact enforced by their lives and their poverty. In other words, it's not a choice in all cases. If you had to feed a family of five with 20 bucks a day, what would you buy? Five veggies a day or Hamburger Helper? Rich people do have the choice, because they can choose to stop at the most expensive supermarkets, buy the best produce available, and even hire someone to cook for them. It's easy for them to make snide remarks about the poor eating habits of poor people (pun intended), but it would be harder to actually discuss or, god forbid, attempt to change the economic reality of their society.

Now follows the predictable parents-are-at-fault speech.

How about this idea? Parents take some responsibility for their offsprings' health. They don't give them any money and instead, put two pieces of bread together with some vegemite in between? That's novel. Add an apple, a bottle of water, and make them walk to school.

Most articles on childhood obesity contain this idea in some form. What Coddington is essentially doing is releasing dairies and fast food outlets of all responsibility. If they market fast food for children, there's nothing we can - or should - do about that. Companies should be allowed to be free! What is this, Soviet Russia?

Blaming the parents is actually the easy way out. It sounds smart enough and appeals to what people already think, but the real messages is that society cannot, will not, change for you. It is always the individuals who must change. Instead of raising wages and benefits, or making fresh produce more available near schools and poor areas, or even introducing free school meals - let's make the parents feel guilty and put vegemite sandwiches in their kids' lunch boxes. Problem solved! (I feel like I should mention that white bread and vegemite isn't actually the most nutritious meal either. In fact, I might argue that children get more nutrition out a burger meal. But I don't want to start a big nutritional flamewar.)

I'd like to point out that I don't think any of these things would necessarily decrease childhood obesity. In fact, I should be putting "obesity" into quotation marks, because it's impossible to really measure how fat children are without seeing them. And even if you do see a fat child, it might do them no good to interfere. Children are growing, their bodies change constantly, and most kids I've known have been chubby, skinny, and everything in between before they're 13. I question how this is going to be harm their healths (except in the more extreme cases). I'd be more worried about their minds and what they learn from the constant humiliation of diets at a young age.

But Coddington is just coming to that:

Then when they're at school, Spanz could force them to do some PhysEd, just like the bad old days. Oh, sorry, I forgot, we can't hurt or humiliate them anymore can we, if they're not good at running, or jumping, and come last, or fall over. In these post-modern days of child-centred learning, it's the self-esteem which is paramount.

Wow, so self-esteem is valued over competitive sports? That's terrible. Mind you, I wouldn't be against PhysEd if it were exercising in a way that feels fun - something most children already do on their own. But if you teach children that exercise is all about competition and being picked first for the team, will they want to exercise later in life? I recall learning one thing from PhysEd at school: exercise is not for me. I haven't exercised much in my adult life. I'm not saying it's all the school's fault - I'm just not a very athletic person - but I do blame the school for some of my aversion to exercise and fitness. I liked first grade PhysEd, because it was playing and dancing to music on our own. I actually question the value of teaching all children to play baseball or soccer.

We're only allowed to humiliate smokers, because they're a drain on the health system. Hang on, aren't obese people a drain on the health system too....?

How about we don't dehumanize anyone by calling them "a drain on the system", and we don't humiliate anyone? I'm not even sure what Coddington is saying here. Is she actually in favor of humiliation, as long as it makes people live healthier? Wouldn't that amount to government interference and go against individual choices? Her article doesn't go deeper into this, so I can't tell. But I dare say this passage reveals Coddington's true colors: she's all about individual choice, as long as she doesn't have to pay for others' choices with her tax money. So a nanny state that makes people eat healthy might be A-OK, as long as you don't limit capitalism and the freedom of companies.

Next stop on the gravy train to Whingeville: ever-widening gap between so-called rich and poor.

"So-called rich"? Interesting. Coddington seems to be suggesting that if any social reforms are made, it would only make things worse. Let's keep everything the way it is now, because it's (going well for her) a risk to change anything. Of course, she straw-mans the idea of fast food restrictions by talking about nationalising the dairies etc. I'm not sure how awful that would really be, but it sounds suspiciously like "any restrictions amount to socialism!!!!!1". 

Humiliating children for their own good is a ridiculous idea. Making lower-class parents feel guilty for their children's "obesity" is simply a cop-out. I'm not against children eating fast food, but I wouldn't mind some restrictions on fast food companies. They should have accountability when they're marketing to children. Companies should have accountability, period. Parents already feel guilty enough, and they do take responsibility for their children. Let's demand more of those those who just want to make money. 

Diet Shows And Why I Hate Them.

I can't watch diet or exercise shows. It seems they're becoming more and more common. Dieting and lifestyle changes are taking over TV, like they took over magazines at some point. It bugs me. I'm not necessarily against the diet mentality being discussed, but I hate when it becomes the dominant, or even the only, viewpoint out there.

You Are What You Eat is a fat-shaming show. The idea is that an overweight person's diet is scrutinized, and often mocked, by a horrified nutritionist. There are fridge raids, there is jiggling fat on camera. There are snarky, "funny" comments about various foods. The underlying idea is that a relatively normal diet is HORRIBLY DANGEROUS and you have to be stopped NOW if you're eating too many fats, carbs or salts compared to the recommended daily amounts. There's no chance to talk back and disagree with the nutritionist.

I know some people learn healthy eating through the show, but the method is pure scare tactics. And - I'm gonna say this - I don't think learning to eat healthy is a positive goal per se, if it comes with a lowered self esteem and public shaming. Mental health over physical, always.

The Biggest Loser is a particularly odious case, because it puts fat people in a boot camp where they're forced to have too much exercise. It's a competition over who loses the  most, so the idea is to crash diet, be publicly weighed, and then possibly lose over the gain of 1 pound. It violates against all the rules we've learned about healthy dieting: not dieting too fast, not overexercising, not starving yourself, etc. I can imagine most contestants don't keep the weight off. No matter how high their motivation, who can keep up with a boot camp mentality their whole lives?

There was one diet show I was able to watch, a British one called Freaky Eaters. Despite the title, I found it to be fairly positive, and watched several episodes on Youtube. The idea of the show is not to lose weight or eat in any predefined way. Rather, they delve into the psychological reasons behind the eating (usually these are people who only eat one kind of food: potatoes, white bread, nothing but meat, etc.). They also have a doctor who checks for any physical damage done by the diet. Usually, it's not scare tactics. But I stopped watching when, in one episode, a woman with a candy-binging problem was told, "Your BMI is higher than it should be, it's 27." Um, but that's only two points above "normalweight", and according to many studies it's the slightly overweight who are healthiest... She was then told she is at a high risk for diabetes, "and once you get diabetes, it's never cured, you have it for your whole life." (I'm paraphrasing because I can't stand to see it again.) Who doesn't know this? And yet some people have diabetes and manage to live a fairly normal life. It's not a death sentence.

This angered me, and I haven't seen the show since. It just seemed so hypocritical. It seemed like they were saying, "You have no real health problems at present, but if your BMI is over 25, YOU CERTAINLY WILL. This gives me the right to talk to you like a child, even if you're here to fix your problems." There's a risk of overclosing on a show like this; this is someone who already wants to change and is willing to do something, so there's no need to shame them. Not that there ever is, but you lose all "tough love" credibility when nagging or scaring people enters the picture.

Who watches these shows? Who goes on them? I imagine the people on the shows are often desperate to change, either because of the social pressure to be slim and healthy, or because their lifestyles genuinely make them feel bad. But how much are they truly helped, and what percentage of the viewers is in fact enjoying the humiliation? I've heard people talk about these shows in tones of amazement and judgement: "Can you imagine, that guy was eating five bags of chips a DAY", or, "She said she doesn't eat a lot, but of course when they opened her fridge, they found all this junk..."

The worst part is, I sometimes think in the same way. I haven't watched any episodes of You Are What You Eat, but I have read articles on several episodes. Seeing a table spread with someone's weekly diet can give me a positive jolt: "Ah, I eat a lot better than that!" It gives you a sense of relief, but I'd say the relief is false; it's not based on being OK the way you are and making your own choices. It's more like an underlying idea that eating healthy is a contest where you've just won. You've proven yourself to be normal and acceptable, not a big bad fatty. The person on the show should be ashamed of how they eat, and you're right to eat the way you do. This goes against everything I believe about eating and health. Is this the very feeling people are seeking when they set out to watch a diet show?

What worries me about this trend is that shows like this present only the least healthy-living fat people, setting them up against a strict slim expert. The effect is much the same as in the clichéd comic trope of  "angry doctor stares at fat patient standing on scale". The experts have to nag at stubborn fatties. It's funny to shame fat people. It's shocking to see how fatties live. We're problem people in need of an intervention, and the reason for the fat can always be located and removed easily by valiant experts. This is, of course, not a realistic image of all fat people. It has nothing to do with what the studies say, and it might in fact change nothing.

One thing is for sure: this type of TV reinforces stereotypes about fat people and food. And that's just not healthy.