In the story I'm reminded of, everyone is handicapped by law into 'equality'. The handicaps force everyone into the same capabilities, physically and mentally. Athletes, geniuses, and everyday people had to wear equipment that forced them down to the same level.
It was a short story, but what was the title and who wrote it?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Harrison Bergeron -- Kurt Vonnegut (1961)
Posted by CaySedai (Member # 6459) on :
This is amazing - I was going to post a request for help finding a book title. I had even typed in a description of the book, then tried to Google it again. I added two words to my search list and came up with not only the title of the book, but found it on Project Gutenberg. Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
Good shot, CT. That's the one!
Thanks!
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
While I'm not 100% behind what they are doing, I don't know that this would be a Harrison Bergeron situation. Stick thin models aren't superior and this law is trying to bring them down. They're engaging in self-destructive behavior that often has serious deleterious effects on their health and may even kill them. They are also being used to promote this self-destructive ideal onto girls.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: While I'm not 100% behind what they are doing, I don't know that this would be a Harrison Bergeron situation. Stick thin models aren't superior and this law is trying to bring them down. They're engaging in self-destructive behavior that often has serious deleterious effects on their health and may even kill them. They are also being used to promote this self-destructive ideal onto girls.
They're superior in the eyes of those who choose who gets to be a supermodel. They're attacking competition because of oversensitive peoples whinging. I'd say it's a Harrison Bergeron situation.
So why is it the governments job to protect us against ourselves?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Sometimes it is, Cheiros do ender. For example, seatbelt laws.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I am extremely against this proposed law.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
quote:So why is it the governments job to protect us against ourselves?
Because sometimes it is?
Let's consider your example. Who on this forum honestly believes, if mandatory seatbelt laws were done away with today, that any of the major car manufacturers would stop supplying cars with properly fuctioning seatbelts?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I'm against this law, but it's nothing at all like Harrison Bergeron.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I also don't think it's an HB situation. But I did remember the story. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Harrison Bergeron would be "Those models make us feel bad, so we need to outlaw them." This situation seems to be more "Those models are hurting and even killing themselves. They are also promoting standards that have other people hurting and killing themselves. We are taking steps to prevent that from happening."
Honestly, while I don't necessarily support the idea of this law, I don't have a lot of problems in saying, "Hey, you can't be using starving people to sell your stuff." I do have to wonder, though, how long it would take for them to pass a law against 400 lb linemen in the NFL.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:They are also promoting standards that have other people hurting and killing themselves.
Not having the government decide which standards should be promoted by private actors and which standards shouldn't is pretty high on my list of things I want out of a government.
It's not their job. I don't want it to be their job. We have a whole amendment to the constitution based on this principle. Even if this falls outside the parameters of the First Amendment (a question I haven't thought seriously about yet), it falls outside the spirit of the First Amendment.
quote:I don't have a lot of problems in saying, "Hey, you can't be using starving people to sell your stuff."
I don't have any problem saying, "Hey, you shouldn't be using starving people to sell your stuff." I have a huge problem with the state saying "Hey, you can't be using starving people to sell your stuff."
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Do you have a prolem with the state requiring that employers maintain a safe work environment?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Do you have a prolem with the state requiring that employers maintain a safe work environment?
No. This is not that.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Harrison Bergeron would be "Those models make us feel bad, so we need to outlaw them."
No. Harrison Bergeron would be "Those models make us feel bad, so we need to deny them, by way of legislation, the opportunity/right to be recognised as better than us at something."
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
cheiros, And you think that matches this situation?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, How about laws penalizing people for profiting from the preventable medical illnesses of their employees while pressuring the employees not to get treated for their illnesses and pretty much firing them if they do?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:How about laws penalizing people for profiting from the preventable medical illnesses of their employees while pressuring the employees not to get treated for their illnesses and pretty much firing them if they do?
If it has those elements, maybe.
This (and it's not clear what "this" actually is - encouragement or regulation - but assume "this" is a law prohibiting such models from taking the runway for now) doesn't have those elements. It requires women to be weighed and measured before doing their job. The too-thin ones are fired. There's no individual element of proof associated with an illness actually existing or the employer encouraging the employee not to be treated.
Again, this is not that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
My biggest overall objection is to the idea that "They are also promoting standards that have other people hurting and killing themselves" is a reason to use the coercive power of government.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
i'm not terribly comfortable with that idea either, but, as a hypothetical, let's say that doing this would have a great ameliorating effect on the rate of eating disorders, cutting them by say 75% (and, yeah, I know that there is no way that will happen). Would that change anyone's opinion of the law?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Not mine.
I'd be all for a boycott under those circumstances, though. I wouldn't oppose a boycott about it now, for that matter.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by cheiros do ender:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: While I'm not 100% behind what they are doing, I don't know that this would be a Harrison Bergeron situation. Stick thin models aren't superior and this law is trying to bring them down. They're engaging in self-destructive behavior that often has serious deleterious effects on their health and may even kill them. They are also being used to promote this self-destructive ideal onto girls.
They're superior in the eyes of those who choose who gets to be a supermodel. They're attacking competition because of oversensitive peoples whinging. I'd say it's a Harrison Bergeron situation.
So why is it the governments job to protect us against ourselves?
quote:Also Originally posted by cheiros do ender:
quote:So why is it the governments job to protect us against ourselves?
Because sometimes it is?
Let's consider your example. Who on this forum honestly believes, if mandatory seatbelt laws were done away with today, that any of the major car manufacturers would stop supplying cars with properly fuctioning seatbelts?
Am I missing something here? Did cherios do ender not just pose a question in one post and then respond to it, even quoting it, in another? I would think that he'd just slipped and forgotten to sign in as his alt, but nobody else has commented on it, and I'd think that someone would have.
I'm definitely in a "gaah, people are @#$^ idiots" type mood today for some reason, so I'm not really trusting my evaluations of situations at all.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
What the ?%*!? Normal is 18.5? But I'm ~ 18, and I am normal, healthy and all those lovely adjectives ^^.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Noemon, from the context, I think that cde intended to quote Rakeesh, but accidentally highlighted his own sentence instead.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Noemon, cheiros was responding to Rakeesh's post directly below the one he posed the question in.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Ah, okay. See, I knew that it wasn't wise to trust myself in evaluating stuff today. Thanks!
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
As additional information for the debate, Brazil and Italy have already implemented similar measures.
However, their restrictions are slightly different. Instead of BMI, for Brazil:
quote:"We've banned girls younger than 16," Ms Cabral says, "and we're asking everyone for a health certificate ... Unlike Madrid and Milan, Sao Paulo Fashion Week has stopped short of setting criteria for models based on their Body Mass Index, a form of height to weight ratio.
Instead, the emphasis is on age limits and education.
Ahead of Wednesday's first catwalk show, more than 100 young models attended lectures on health and nutrition. Each was given a booklet of dietary tips, entitled Eat Well and Without Guilt.
For Italy:
quote: According to the code, models must provide a medical certificate proving they do not suffer eating disorders.
The code also bans the use of models aged under 16 and urges the use of larger-sized models.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:The code also ... urges the use of larger-sized models.
Does doing that in a law have any real affect on anything?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
"Effect", I believe.
And if you read the article,
quote: The code does not clarify how those who violate the code would be punished, nor does it carry any legal weight.
However, senior figures within Italy's large fashion sector, said that houses that flouted the rules would be sanctioned by being sidelined from major fashion events.
"It's about technical punishment. But these technicalities are very important in fashion," said Stefano Dominella, head of AltaRoma which organises such events in the Italian capital.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
I had a feeling a discussion like this would ensue. I didn't offer my opinion on the obvious equation of "THIS LAW = HARRISON BERGERON".
I don't think it's similar.
I thought of the Harrison Bergeron story because this law represents a small step in the direction of the government controlling another aspect of our lives. I'm kinda with Dags on this one.
Quote (originally by Dagonee):
quote:I don't have any problem saying, "Hey, you shouldn't be using starving people to sell your stuff." I have a huge problem with the state saying "Hey, you can't be using starving people to sell your stuff."
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I don't have a problem with these kind of laws. We outlaw prostitution because we don't think any person should draw a profit from selling sex. Sure, outlawing these dangerously skinny models is one step down a slippery slope, but life is a matter of degrees.
The presence of super-skinny models carries a host of negative externalities, not unlike the presence of steroids in professional baseball both exerts pressure on the other players, shifts expectations of fans and of aspiring players.
Neither models nor athletes are independent of the society that supports fashion or sports.
I don't understand the importance of expectations. I think it's an untapped area ripe for study. I also think that as we become a more global society, concern for how the muscular forces of wealth and industry changes individual and family expectations is going to factor more prominently in our national discourse.
[ February 02, 2007, 07:42 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I don't think prostitution should be illegal.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
And I don't think prostitution should be understood as a reasonable occupation.
[ February 03, 2007, 02:34 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Fusiachi (Member # 7376) on :
Could I ask why?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I don't think that women should ever feel pressured to be prostitutes.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Noemon-
I was quoting my own question with a reemphasis on the word 'why'. The question, as it was originally written, still hasn't been answered. I understand government protecting us against willful harming by others, but no one has ever convinced me that it's the governments job to protect us against ourselves.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
There is the existence of the job, doctor. I don't think that women should ever feel pressured to be doctors.
Posted by jlt (Member # 10088) on :
I think trying to aid models with eating disorders is good, but the rules are too strict. For one thing, it is not all the fashion industry that causes eating disorders among teenage girls. It is a societal standard of thinness equating beauty. Even if ultra-thin models were banned, the girls at my school who diet excessively would continue to do so because that is what their peers see as a standard necessary to be accepted.
In addition, I have several friends who are extremely skinny but eat more than I do and obviously don't have eating diorders. I think that eating disorders are caused much more by a social expectation. For example, while I am in the pink of health and at a healthy weight for my height, I am generally considered "large" despite the fact that my ribs show. I wish people realized that health matters more than beauty.
From my position though, I wish that designers would employ models of all shapes and sizes. There is not one type of beautiful. Also, it would be uh a blessing if clothing were designed to fit people other than models. I am by no means obese at 5'6" and 120-130 lbs, but I can never find clothes to fit me because they're made for mannequins and models.
However, I like Tstorm's point about connecting this to Harrison Bergeron. While these laws are well meaning, Harrison Bergeron is a warning about overly controlling well meaning laws.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by jlt: From my position though, I wish that designers would employ models of all shapes and sizes. There is not one type of beautiful. Also, it would be uh a blessing if clothing were designed to fit people other than models. I am by no means obese at 5'6" and 120-130 lbs, but I can never find clothes to fit me because they're made for mannequins and models.
I would like to know who these designers are so that I may purchase massive amounts of their products. This came up in another thread. I'm six feet tall and 130 lbs. I can barely find clothes to save my life. It irks me to no end when people say that all clothes are made for tall, thin people.
At any rate, models are supposed to essentially be walking clotheshangers. I appreciate such a law to a certain degree, but I'm not sure that it's the kind of thing that should actually be put into practice. Are eating disorders a problem with models? Absolutely. Should people hold up models as the ultimate standard of beauty? Probably not. But the truth is, nowadays more people pay attention to CELEBRITIES as the standard of beauty, and models are generally not as high-profile as actors or musicians.
-pH
Posted by jlt (Member # 10088) on :
pH, you make a good point that celerities also have influence, likely more than models. But where do celebrities get their standards of beauty, inculding thinness, leading many to delvelop eating disorders.
I also totally understand you dilemma about being tall and thin, I've been to both sides of the issue. When I was younger I was as thin as a rail and tall and could never find clothes that fit then. And then puberty hit, and now I am no longer a rail and still have a horrible time finding clothes.
I'm not saying designers should make clothes for obese women, curvy women, thin women, short women, tall women, or any other type, instead they should make clothing for all different types of women and also employ a variety of models.
I want to be able to find clothes that fit and flatter me, I want you to be able to find clothes that work for you, I want my thin as a rod friends, my short friends, my tall friends, to be able to find clothes that work for them, and I want designers to make clothes for a variety of people with different body shapes.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Celebrities, as far as I know, don't really get their standard of beauty from models. It's become a lot more fashionable as of late for celebrities to have some meat on their bones. How often do you read magazine covers talking about who is "scary skinny" or anorexic simply because he/she lost five pounds?
You did say that it would be a blessing if clothing were designed to fit other than non-tall-and-thin body type, implying that clothes are designed to fit that. I'm saying there aren't all that many clothes that are actually designed for that body type, especially not in a low- to mid-price range.
-pH
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"So why is it the governments job to protect us against ourselves? "
"Sometimes it is, Cheiros do ender. For example, seatbelt laws."
The government wouldn't care if the rest of us didn't have to pay for the hospitalization&recuperation of seatbelt non-users.
Posted by jlt (Member # 10088) on :
pH- But in refutation, what about the articles that criticized Tyra Banks for gaining weight?
Also, I implied in my first post that clothing is designed to fit models, who are, often tall and thin, but I was using design in the "designer" sense- higher priced. Not that I actually buy higher priced clothing, it was still only an inaccurate generalization, and not really critical to my point.
In any case, my position remains the same, designers at all price ranges should employ a variety of models and design a variety of clothing to fit different people. Like I said, I think you hould be able to buy clothing that fits you, and I should be able to buy clothing that fits me, and that clothing that fits you me, and a variety of others with different body shapes should be able to find clothing that works for them.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
There was an article in the last issue of People about Tyra's weight gain that was pretty positive. And a mention of Jessica Simpson's weight gain being just fine.
There was also a bit about how Jessica Alba is now "scary skinny."
Granted, I'm probably more sensitive to that angle simply because it's something that has affected me.
Add: Different stores do cater to different body types. Old Navy is more for an "average" figure, as far as I can tell (all of their clothes are too short), and the Gap is kind of like that as well. I have better luck with the Limited and Express, although their shirts don't really fit right on me, either.
-pH
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
So what would have been your reactions if the headline had been N.Y. considers banning ultrawide fashion models when a BMI of 25 or more is also outside of the WorldHealthOrganization's definition of normal?
[ February 03, 2007, 11:10 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by jlt (Member # 10088) on :
pH- I know, that certain stores sometimes tend to provide clothes for a general body type, but wouldn't life be easier if one designer just said, I am tall and thin and can't find clothes, I'm going to design clothes for tall thin women. an dthen another designer said, I'm a short woman with a large derriere and said, I'm short w/ a large rear and can't find clothes, I'm going to design clothes for short women w/ large bottoms. Then if you were a tall thin woman or a short women w/ a large derriere you could go and buy that designers clothes which are meant to look good on your type of body, rather than going from store to store, digging through racks, trying on endless piles of clothes, trying to find something that works for you.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Are you asking me personally? As in, do I think it would be a good idea? No, I don't.
-pH
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by jlt: pH- I know, that certain stores sometimes tend to provide clothes for a general body type, but wouldn't life be easier if one designer just said, I am tall and thin and can't find clothes, I'm going to design clothes for tall thin women. an dthen another designer said, I'm a short woman with a large derriere and said, I'm short w/ a large rear and can't find clothes, I'm going to design clothes for short women w/ large bottoms. Then if you were a tall thin woman or a short women w/ a large derriere you could go and buy that designers clothes which are meant to look good on your type of body, rather than going from store to store, digging through racks, trying on endless piles of clothes, trying to find something that works for you.
The best I've been able to do so far is learn the cuts of a particular brand of jeans and try to get the one that's the closest. And finding one store that I like and mostly shopping there. Initially, it's really time-consuming, but after that you can make a beeline for what you know will most likely look okay.
-pH
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"Are you asking me personally?"
I'm asking everyone who responds to the "ultrathin" headline their reaction to the "ultrawide" alternative.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:There is the existence of the job, doctor. I don't think that women should ever feel pressured to be doctors.
We'll disagree, then. I think medicine a fine profession.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
We'll disagree, then. I think prositution a fine profession. Maybe not as fine as being a writer, though.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:There is the existence of the job, doctor. I don't think that women should ever feel pressured to be doctors.
We'll disagree, then. I think medicine a fine profession.
Does the fact that you consider it a fine profession justify pressuring women into becoming doctors?
-pH
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Yep. And it works like this: I don't want to live in a world where if a lady is on welfare, the community thinks it's acceptable to expect her to get off dole and work as a whore, but if a certified M.D. were in a similar situation, I think it's perfectly acceptable to expect the doctor to put a good faith effort into finding a job practicing medicine.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
That doesn't answer the question at all. I'm talking about women who don't want to be doctors or who haven't decided yet what career to persue. Do you think it's okay to pressure them to be doctors just because you approve of that career?
-pH
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:That doesn't answer the question at all.
My answer may not answer your question, but for it to match up with the prostitute scenario, we needed to assume that the doctor was already qualifed.
As to whether I think it's okay to pressure women to be doctors for no other reason than I approve of the career, sure, but not exclusively doctors. Our society provides a long list of professions I find becoming on a lady. Prostitution is not on that list.
My problem with prostitution is not so much with the independent woman with options who chooses to be a hooker. I have concerns about her, but not so much as to make it illegal. My problem is that with prostitution legal, the mother/brother/friend/conscience of the girl has coverage to push her to become a prostitute, whereas if her conscience leads her to feed her family by becoming a doctor, fantastic.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: "So why is it the governments job to protect us against ourselves? "
"Sometimes it is, Cheiros do ender. For example, seatbelt laws."
The government wouldn't care if the rest of us didn't have to pay for the hospitalization&recuperation of seatbelt non-users.
Yeah, public healthcare is part of the "government protecting us against ourselves", too. They also stand to lose tax revenue from working people that are injured from not wearing a seatbelt.
And you still havn't answered pH's question, Irami.
[ February 04, 2007, 07:55 AM: Message edited by: cheiros do ender ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
If it were just the public tax-paid portion of healthcare costs and tax revenue loss, I suspect that mandatory seatbelt laws would still be a proposal up for debate. However private insurance companies, HMOs, hospitals, and businesses REALLY dislike the extra costs that they incur from unseatbelted car accident victims. And they had the lobbying clout to make mandatory seatbelt laws into reality.
Since the rest of us (who make up the public) have to pay higher premiums for health and income-replacement insurance, make higher payments for non-insured medical treatment, and pay higher amounts for goods&services due to recruitment&training costs for replacements because of those unseatbelted victims, the rest of us benefit from the success of those private lobbying efforts.
[ February 04, 2007, 09:26 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Or they could simply not cover people injured in a car accident whilst not wearing a seatbelt. And then whose problem would that be? The governments? If so, why?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Without government or insurance coverage, the rest of us would still have to deal with the problems. Not all of us are willing to murder people for being stupid, which is what withholding medical treatment would be.
[ February 04, 2007, 09:51 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
You don't have to drive if your passengers aren't wearing their seatbelts.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by cheiros do ender: Or they could simply not cover people injured in a car accident whilst not wearing a seatbelt. And then whose problem would that be? The governments? If so, why?
How does this work? (No, seriously, honest question.)
When the accident victims are at the scene, how do the paramedics make an unequivocal decision as to whether the person was belted and the belt malfunctioned, or belted but slipped out anyway, or not belted? And when they bring those injured to the ER, what do they do with those not covered? Prop them in the corner while those who were verified unequivocably to be belted get taken care of?
What happens is that everyone who is injured at the scene gets taken in, and then the insurance issue gets sorted out later. Someone will eat the costs, be it an insurance company, or the hospital, or the individual. Since these things are so expensive that you can't really collect from individuals unless they are millionaires (in practice, the money just isn't there), it's almost always hospitals or insurance companies, and those costs will -- assuredly -- be passed on.
---
Edited to add: And the hospital eating costs is in part how the government comes in. There have to be hospitals to provide the care, and Medicare & Medicaid are a big chunk of hospital budgets. When those compensation costs are set, they can't be so low that hospitals can't stay in business. And the hospital costs to be covered go up if they are inflated by spread-out costs of the under- and uninsured.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Yet another reason why I'm happy CT is a doctor instead of a prostitute.
Posted by EthicsReGradient (Member # 10165) on :
Isn't everyone?
Posted by jlt (Member # 10088) on :
Speaking of healthcare, I just want to mention an example in my life. There's this girl who is in my Model UN club and she moved here from England. She has very very severe bone problems and has to get weekly treatments. The treatments are expensive here so now her family has the dilemma of bearing the expense of her treatments here or moving back to England where the public health care covers her treatments. What about people who can't move out of the country and are stuck without health care?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Yet another reason why I'm happy CT is a doctor instead of a prostitute.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)