A Glimmer of Hope… & Response to Billy:
A Glimmer of Hope…
A Response to Briana Bryant’s Article
Billy Hinshaw
Undergraduate/History
I picked up the last issue of Flip Side and started reading the article that was written by Briana Bryant called “Simple Changes: A Modern Modest Proposal.” I read of a solution of dealing with a widespread problem in American society, and how it would “be a very noble way to make use of the government’s money.” Here’s an idea (just in case you missed the article): if your BMI is 30 or greater, and you are spotted in public by the police, you are immediately arrested, imprisoned, and rehabilitated down to a BMI of less than 30, if possible, no questions asked. Ever. I read this article, and couldn’t help but figure out three flaws contained within, varying from obvious to extremely cataclysmic.
The first flaw I found in the writer’s solution is that it is based solely off of BMI, and nothing else. For anyone who takes a KINS course (or a course from another accredited institution that transfers to UW-Eau Claire as a KINS course) on wellness theory, BMI (or Body Mass Index) is a measure of obesity that is determined solely by height and weight, and nothing else. Its purpose is to give a degree of the risk that an individual may have for health problems later in life, such as heart attack, stroke, and cancer. Any athlete or fitness enthusiast would agree that BMI is one of the most narrow-minded measures of health out there, and the reason is because it only looks at height and weight. Take for instance, myself: I weigh 185 pounds, I’m 6’3, and I’ve lost 65 pounds in three years. In the spring semester of the 2008-2009 school year, I took a course at UW-Barron County in Rice Lake, Wisconsin, called “Fitness for Life” (which transfers to UW-Eau Claire as KINS 186), and around the time of the class, I weighed about 205 pounds. My BMI at that time would have been 25.6, which officially puts me in the “overweight” category.
However, anyone who knew me from that time period could tell you that I was not, under any circumstances, as overweight of a person as the BMI would hypothesize. “He wasn’t fat,” they’d say. That’s because the BMI measure ignores two crucial aspects of the human body: the weight of bones, and the weight of muscle. I’m a pretty big-boned individual; I could rent my ribcage out for storage, due to my years of playing flute and trumpet in middle school and high school. I have weight lifted and exercised on and off for the past four years, and I work at Walmart as a cart-pusher, which requires a high degree of fitness in order to not leave the job completely fatigued. Plus, talk to a fitness expert, and they’ll say that muscle is more dense than fat; that means that it’s heavier than fat. Is the BMI measure flawed? I hope you’d agree with me in saying, no shit!
The second flaw in the solution is the assumption of a Hobbesian world where people deserve to be kept in check by the government, because they simply cannot be trusted. It applies to Bryant’s solution as such: We can’t trust the people to take care of their own health, so we’ll take care of it for them. I am the government, and I can manage your health better than you. So, let’s make it illegal to be overweight. If we give up our freedom to live our own life the way we want, in terms of health, then the government will have taken away a big freedom, and they won’t stop there. If you’ve ever read the book 1984 by George Orwell, you know exactly what I mean. If you haven’t, imagine a world where you are constantly monitored 24/7, and your freedoms of speech and expression are extremely limited, not only in outward speech and expression, but also in your mind and in your thoughts. Also imagine that things have become so strict because the people trusted the government too much, and the government took advantage. This is the world of 1984, and it applies as such: The government constantly monitors what you eat, where you eat, how much you eat, and how you attempt to expend those calories, if at all. Bryant’s solution is a precursor to this kind of strictness, and therefore, can be classified as “dystopian.” Think it’s crazy? Good, because that was the intent.
The third and final flaw I find within the article is the assumption that obesity is only a fixable, biological problem. I said before of the weight I lost, and a huge portion of it was because I intended to lose that weight. However, a large part of it wasn’t on purpose. Part of it was lost because of stress, because I lost my appetite, and because of trials and tribulations in my life. For me to say that I lost my weight because of diet and exercise alone would be only half-truth. Of course, I didn’t starve myself on purpose; I just wasn’t hungry a lot of the time, and I simply ate less. Of course, “Fitness for Life” somewhat gave me a lasting phobia of trans fats, but that’s not the point. The point is I underwent weight loss because of personal psychological and social problems, one of those problems being the fact that I was apparently “clinically overweight.” For many people, they do the completely opposite thing: they stress-eat, and they gain weight because of it. In many cases, it’s a generational problem: Most people are just naturally obese.
Consider this: then you walk down the street, and you see a man whom society would deem “obese” or “fat,” what do you see? Do you see the man for only his obesity? Or do you wonder how he got that way? Does your mind somehow try to come up with a theory about why he became obese? Perhaps there were problems growing up, or there was a divorce that wasn’t his fault, or he is going through problems as we speak. Maybe he is trying to lose that weight, by either dieting or exercise, but it’s not as easy as he thought, and so, his success isn’t the best. Do you ever think about the reason behind the problem, if it is a problem? Or do you only see the man for his obesity? Bryant’s solution sees the man only for his obesity, and ignores the man as a human being. Her solution ignores the belief that all human beings have intrinsic value that transcends what’s on the outside. For Christians, this means that all people, obese or not, have been created in the image of God. Not only that, but if you have a friend who is technically obese, yet you know the friend to be an awesome person who has your back, no matter what the situation, then obesity isn’t an issue, is it? I rest my case.
For all I know, Bryant should major in either political science or criminal justice, but before she goes any further, she should stop and approach her totalitarian solution from all perspectives, and take into consideration the many things it ignores. It ignores the fact that it is incomplete and narrow-minded in its approach. It ignores the dystopian influences it has. It ignores the fact that we are all human beings, and that we matter more than just a number on a scale. Last, but definitely not least, Bryant’s article also ignores the fact that being a little overweight sometimes just doesn’t matter. If you read this, and you got offended in the least bit by Bryant’s article because you could consider yourself one of those putative prisoners, then my heart goes out to you as a human being. You are worth more than what your doctor tells you about your health. You mean much more to people than what society deems you, based solely on a physical attribute. Much more. Perhaps, in saying that, I can somehow be a pioneer in publishing an article in Flip Side that shines a glimmer of hope for once.
Response to Billy:
Briana Bryant
Undergraduate/Undeclared
Upon first reading Billy Hinshaw’s response to my article, “Simple Changes,” it would appear that I am a heartless, judgmental person whose opinion deserves to be completely disregarded. However, Hinshaw has clearly not read A Modest Proposal by Jonathan Swift. Swift’s article, as well as mine, is based on an art form called satire. Hinshaw was apparently unsure what A Modest Proposal was, so he decided the best course of action to take would be to just ignore my reference to it and act as if my article was a normal proposal. Just to make it crystal clear, satire is not serious. I made the satirical proposal to prove a point. I agree, BMI is a very narrow-minded measurement, which is precisely why I used it in my satirical article. Also, Hinshaw’s argument comes off as weak because he decided to bring emotions into the equation where they didn’t belong. Before responding to articles, Hinshaw should be sure he's educated about the issues and sources involved, so as to avoid looking like an ignoramus.