Slashdot Mirror
Government Should Ban Skinny Models To Curb Anorexia, Say Researchers
smoothjazz writes "Governments are justified to prevent very skinny models from walking the catwalk and ban photographs and advertisements suggesting that extreme thinness is attractive, according to a group of researchers who found that social and cultural environment influences on young women is largely responsible for the spread of chronic eating disorder."
My wife is anorexic. She's stable, and she's become a successful practicing MD. Understanding the problem doesn't cure it.
She grew up in a home with two half-sisters under a frequently single mother who went through many marriages. Her (now also anorexic) mother has career success, ridiculously low self esteem, and she married at least two physically abusive men. The worst of them was a churchgoing man who physically abused all his daughters/stepdaughters and repeatedly raped his own daughter (thankfully my wife did not endure that). He hid it from his wife/my mother-in-law and everyone else (except the girls) for several years. When my mother-in-law finally understood it was happening, she divorced him as soon as she felt she could without physical abuse as a repercussion. I don't think that was right away. And because of fear, he was never reported or punished. I don't think he even quit attending church.
My wife had no control of her life in her childhood. She could control her appearance. She became anorexic to give fulfill her need for a sense of control in her life.
Banning the ads would help reduce the draw of that manifestation of the need for control. But the root problem is very commonly associated with domestic abuse and/or unhealthy childhoods like the one my wife grew up in.
Many people anecdotally agree. Your hospitals in the US are sometimes more lavish than hotels. Who the hell isn't going to say the care is better there?
In canada you get what you need to live. Which is the important bit. The living.
The climate is REALLY fucking reaching because we have a much harsher climate and have many many more people per capita die to exposure than you do.
The demographics and lifestyles are very very very similar. Go to Ontario, then go nearly anywhere in the northeastern US. You can't really tell much difference.
I already mentioned that some Canadians go to the US for treatment, and thats already largely explained. A population that is over 10x ours has a larger need for rarer treatments, thus has more facilities better equipped to deal with it. Its generally a 4-6 hour or less flight to get there. Why would they open a specialized clinic for it here?
As far as correlation =/= causation, its a bullshit strawman in this case. Our lifestyles are slightly different because we are taught differently. Our health care, because its publicly funded, for the public good, deals a LOT in preventative treatment and education on how to avoid things.
Guess what? Preventative treatment and education are extremely effective and extremely cost effective. The fact that we're living longer while spending less than 1/5th of your per patient spending is plenty of evidence of that.
Our improved lifestyle is a direct result of these organizations. The school milk program, the Canada Food Guide that was released in the 60s and continues to this day... etc... all government funded, all related to or directly funded by our universal health care.
Try getting your fucking Insurance company to invest in education.
I apologize for being curt with you but I've had it with people like you touting the virtues of a system that is partially responsible for your country being on the verge of circling the drain for the last 5 years
You also fling communism around... communism isn't the answer, a socialist democracy on the other hand is fan-fucking-tastic. Ask us, or the Norwegians, or the Swedes... or any one of another dozen countries that are thriving in what are for america very troubled times, all thanks to our socialist systems.
I should also point out that at Americas most successful it was damned close to a socialist government anyways.
Like open heart surgeries etc?
Exactly like open heart surgeries.
Do you suppose the wealthiest Canadians needing a bypass put their name on the list and wait patiently... Or fly to Cleveland?
Do you suppose wealthy (elderly) Canadians in need of an organ transplant resign themselves to age-based rationing and just die quietly... Or pull a Steve Jobs and fly to Tennessee for a no-fuss, no-muss, no-waiting-list liver?
Or on the flip side of the equation, as a brilliant young surgeon, would you stay in Canada with its government-capped doctor's salaries... Or "defect" to your neighbor to the South where you can make 10x as much without the hassle of having to treat the masses of unwashed poor as a form of government-imposed forced charity?
You really aughtn't act so defensive about this - As I said, I do think you have the better public health care system, overall. At the upper end, though, of-the-wealthy, by-the-wealthy, and for-the-wealthy, sorry, the US has that market cornered. And I don't say that as a positive!
Consider: If you're 150 pounds overweight, it's likely to cut 20 years off of your life. If you'[re 150 pounds underweight, you're probably already dead
No shit, sherlock.
I personally don't think the problem is with the skinny models, it's with the photoshopping that goes on in the industry. It's absurd - look at this for example - scroll down a page to first photo..
I mean, she was skinny to begin with... but attractive - with the photoshop, she's just odd looking. And that's what they're aiming for.
Is any form of free speech harmless?
Religious free speech harms many by advocating positions that cause people to not act in their best interests. This includes such activities as PRAYING for something to help them rather than spending that time DOING something to help themselves (esp. when they do something like eschew doctors and rely on religion to cure their cancer resulting in their unnecessary early demise and possibly significantly more pain in their final days than necessary).
Or should political speech encouraging or protesting gun control (each side claims the outcome the other side promotes harms people) be banned?
Should people be banned from such religious or political speech or required to somehow "take credit" (i.e., pay for the damage they cause - as anything else isn't really "taking credit" if they continue to spout such nonsense).
The fact it causes "harm" just isn't sufficient reason to ban speech IMHO.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
Then again, it is still better than a government run system, as I at least have choices of carriers and coverage.
UK, Australia, NZ, Canada all have some degree of government run healthcare systems, two of those countries have lower tax rates than the US, the other two have tax rates not much higher meaning you still have money left to buy private health insurance, it costs much less and it still gives you your choice of doctor and hospital. Government healthcare is just a service, it doesn't cost all your money and you don't have to use it if you want a different treatment. Plus, if the government is not willing to pay for elective surgery, you can still go to its hospital as a private patient and it's still way cheaper since you just have to pay a surgeon their hourly rate. Oh, and you can buy medicine from a regular store for the same price that HMOs pay since the government collectively bargains.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem