Better Blind Than Fat?!
Study Shows One in Seven Would Rather Be Blind than Obese
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
One in seven women would rather be blind than obese. That’s what researchers at Arizona State University (ASU) found when, in a study of how “obesity spreads socially,” they asked 100 women to choose—hypothetically—between obesity and other socially stigmatized conditions like alcoholism and herpes.
One in four would rather suffer from depression. Severe depression. It’s a sick question, really. But the responses say a lot about our culture—and the ways in which we’re unfathomably stupid.
Starshine Roshell
It’s interesting that it comes down to a comparison between body proportions and eyesight, when it’s our society’s fixation on looks that fuels the great Fear of Fatness. And it’s funny to me that these imaginary scenarios, if rendered real, would leave us obese but not depressed about it, or svelte but unable to admire ourselves in a mirror.
Let’s remember that “obese” doesn’t necessarily mean “Biggest Loser”-sized. A full third of adult Americans fit the definition; many are your friends and family members. You may fit it yourself: 5′4″ and 174 pounds, 5′9″ and 203. Six feet, 221. Sound familiar?
Obese people are not starring in big-screen rom-coms, not modeling Victoria’s Secret’s new Sexy Little Things Supersmooth Cheekinis (yes, they’re real). But they’re everywhere else. And they’re doing just fine.
Considering the staggering pain and loss that come with blindness, alcoholism, and severe depression, I assume the women polled for the ASU study wouldn’t wish those afflictions on any of their overweight friends—even if it meant their bodies would shrink down to a “normal” weight. (Please tell me I can assume that.) Why, then, would many of the pollees choose those maladies for themselves over having to shop in the plus-size section?
To be fair, obesity is unhealthy. It’s linked to heart disease, diabetes, cancer, high blood pressure, and stroke. Nobody wants it—not those who have it, not those who dread it.
But do you know what blindness is linked to? It’s linked to not seeing anything! Ever! As in you can’t read a menu or drive a car, do a crossword puzzle or gaze into a lover’s eyes.
Besides, obesity is adjustable. Diet and exercise are no picnic (no picnic I’d want to attend, anyway—no picnic with, like, fried chicken and a wheel of brie) but if Weight Watchers and workouts could cure blindness, I guarantee we’d all be tripping over guide dogs at Zumba class.
In fact, if you asked people who’ve lost their sight, or are racked with severe depression, or who get the shakes between daily bottles of whiskey, I’ll bet most of them would trade their heavy physical and emotional burdens for a solid 60 pounds of body weight any damn day of the week. (Yeah, I know I’ll hear from the rest of you; bring it.)
So here’s what I think is driving those startling poll numbers: shame.
Blindness is a blameless affliction, whereas society (don’t even try to deny it) still considers obesity to be a character flaw—and fair game for ridicule. Regardless of what we now know about genetics, deeply ingrained cultural eating patterns, and the good ole fat-fostering American diet, we still want to drape our fat fellow compatriots in shame. Don’t we? We want to savor our superiority and chide their lack of discipline.
The irony, of course, is that our culture has grown increasingly empathetic to the plights of alcoholism, which used to be rebuffed as a vice, and depression, which used to be rebuked as a weakness. When you consider the way we still snub women wearing a double-digit dress size—and live in fear of becoming them—it makes blindness just a smidge more palatable.
At least you wouldn’t have to witness the hypocrisy.
Related Links
Starshine Roshell is the author of Wife on the Edge.
Comments
I would rather be blind then dead. Being fat is a serious heath issue. Blindness is only an issue if you not properly trained to deal with it. You can live life sucessful and happy blind. My daughter is blind. Fyi the blind can read. I don't fear being blind I fear dying early due to heath issues. The question seems silly to me but I deal with blindness every day. Its only a big deal because we live in a visual world. Blindness doesn't have to restrict your life.. being obese does
pennyd (anonymous profile)
May 18, 2011 at 2:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes, blind people can and do lead rich, fulfilling lives. But to say blindness does not restrict your life is sheer nonsense.
And in an era of such excruciating political correctness, I find it appalling that fat people are considered fair target for ridicule and abuse.
winddancer1562 (anonymous profile)
May 18, 2011 at 7:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It is impossible to imagine being blind unless you are or have been blind. Christopher Hitchens, who is losing his ability to speak due to esophageal cancer, stated recently in an article for Vanity Fair, "Like health itself, the loss of such a thing can’t be imagined until it occurs."
Hypothetical "would you rather" discussions are good fun at parties, but otherwise entirely meaningless.
Kingprawn (anonymous profile)
May 18, 2011 at 2:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Could any of these "would you rather" choices ever be "politically correct" or "entirely meaningless"? For nearly 2 years I was placed on a heavy daily dose of steroids for a rare lung condition and faced an enormous weight gain and bloating that required me to buy clothing several sizes larger than my "normal" size. A dear friend is suffering with glaucoma that cost her one eye and her remaining eye is deteriorating rapidly until she loses sight altogether. My youngest child was brain-injured at birth, has seizures daily, and the drugs she takes increases her overall body weight. What choice does she have: stop taking the drugs to lose the unwanted weight and have her body wracked daily with severe seizures or . . .? And somewhere along the way we have learned that alcoholism is an addiction - possibly genetic - as well as some forms of depression, i.e. bipolar, manic depressive disorder, paranoid-schizophrenia. Maybe one of those models suffering from anorexia or bulemia would prefer to be "just a little bit fat". How can any of us classify these serious medical problems as "meaningless" or put them in any category of "choice" when we don't have all the facts or solutions? Who are we to sit in judgment on another human being who doesn't "measure up" to our personal standards for what is viewed on the body's exterior? Do we no longer value the mind and heart representing thoughtfulness and goodness within persons? If we lose that ability and fail to remind ourselves and our children of this fact daily, then I fear our society has lost all semblance of hope and genuine charity.
Shep (anonymous profile)
May 19, 2011 at 8:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm almost certain that I don't understand your comment. I'm also almost certain that you misunderstood my comment. I want to be clear that I don't think that the health problems addressed in the survey are meaningless. I think the survey is meaningless. I'm very sorry to hear about the health problems of your family and friend. I, too was diagnosed with glaucoma at the age of 16 and have lost some vision in both eyes...but I don't see how my vision problems or your son's brain injury or your lung disease or your friend's glaucoma is relevant to the topic of the column. There were no survey questions cited that asked people if they would rather gain weight on steroids or loose lung function.
My argument is that healthy people are incapable of imagining themselves with health problems like obesity or blindness. Therefore, the survey is meaningless unless you are at a cocktail party and are desperate for a topic of discussion.
Kingprawn (anonymous profile)
May 20, 2011 at 8:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Shep,
My last comment is addressed to you. The greeting was cut off by my poor editing skills.
Kingprawn (anonymous profile)
May 20, 2011 at 8:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Then we are absolutely in agreement, Kingprawn, that the survey is meaningless. My comments went beyond the survey, however, to point out that without knowing how or why someone is "obese" or has other physical maladies or is emotionally depressed or fighting mental illness, there are far too many of us who make judgments about their "condition" based solely on what is visible failing to recognize that such judgments are meaningless. A person's value is not based on one's physique, but the intangibles that come from the mind and heart. I used personal stories to illustrate my point, and not to garner any empathy. My professional life has been devoted to the mentally and physically challenged, and I will always be their advocate. They were not "surveyed" about their "choices". They and their families have simply worked through the conditions life brought them, and I admire their resiliency.
Shep (anonymous profile)
May 20, 2011 at 9:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
That one woman in seven? I've got news for her---she's already blind in that she can't see how ridiculous she is.
Draxor (anonymous profile)
May 20, 2011 at 10:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Interesting that our society excoriates smokers, who can be truly and completely addicted to nicotine, yet make apologies for morbidly obese whose addiction is food. We then make excuses why they are depressed or have social conditions that lead to over eating. Everyone should be treated in a respectable manner, but that does not include intellectual dishonesty about why they have their condition.
The sad fact is that obesity can be controlled by simply not eating. As a society we used to know this and have self control. Morbid obesity leads to a plethora of health problems, among these diseases is Type II diabetes and the rest of us have to pay.
For the vast majority of morbidly obese their personal condition is a choice and we should not feel sorry for them any more than smokers or crack heads. And yes, I have been working in bariatrics, among other medical disciplines, for 2 decades attempting to find solutions to keep people from getting fat. Thank goodness their resolution to out eat solutions has kept the industry interested and researchers solvent.
italiansurg (anonymous profile)
May 21, 2011 at 6:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Good column Starshine. We often spend too much time around our own circle of friends and co-workers so surveys like the one cited are interesting to glimpse at how others think/feel.
For many of the obese, a part of the problem is economic and not just an issue of personal choice. According to recent statistics, we now live in a country where the lower two quintiles of the population (lower 40%) have zero net equity (incomes are poor as well). So a portion of that demographic doesn't have the economic means to purchase more expensive but healthier foods.
At least there are some efforts to change this:
http://news.change.org/stories/will-c...
EastBeach (anonymous profile)
May 25, 2011 at 12:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
East Beach has got to be kidding...
Healthy food is more expensive? Whether fruit and vegetables are organic or not has nothing to do with nutritional value and non organic fresh food is truly dirt cheap. Stop making victims out of everyone and instead make people accountable for their own actions. People don't eat fast food because it's cheaper than preparing healthy food; it's far more expensive. They do it for instant gratification and to shut their kids up among other non economic reasons.
italiansurg (anonymous profile)
May 29, 2011 at 6:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)