I read this article with a combination of amusement and horror. We're looking at market forces colliding with moral ones, and for once I'm on the side of the markets, mostly because I disagree with the moral assertion being made.
If fat people are poor, don't spend money and require more resources, it's no surprise that the markets aren't accommodating them. Given that obesity is overwhelmingly a consequence of a person's decisions, not an unpreventable disease, there is no justification at all for making everyone else suffer in order to make fat people happier (nor would there be if it were entirely chance, but that's another argument entirely). If the obese section were as large as the men's or women's sections in a shop ('not just in the fat people's corner at the back') then there'd be less room for choice for normal people. Men already have to put up with always having to march half-way through any clothes shop, rather than being able to pop in and buy immediately, and that's because they're not impulse buyers, and because they tend to have a goal, rather than a gathering mentality that will pick up something that looks good that they've seen.
Clothing for the obese doesn't look good, because being obese doesn't look good (except to a few people with unusual tastes, just as there's someone into anything). It's no wonder the fat section is at the back with the menswear. Furthermore, it's not just fat people who can't find anything that fits. I am not able to find trousers that fit me, and must buy fat people's trousers and wear a belt, because manufacturers take one ratio of sizes and simply expand or shrink their clothes, ensuring that anyone not of these specific proportions will be stuck. If anyone deserves to complain, it's athletic people. Trousers and jackets are made for people with a significant degree of middle-aged spread and no muscle on their legs. Jackets in the shops always sag backwards because there's too much material around the waist, and trousers never fit because there's too little material everywhere else at the appropriate waist size. But I haven't started a campaign group because it's my choice to do exercise and be healthy, and I know that being different from the crowd will inevitably mean that the mass market won't cater for me well.
Similarly, where's the point in 'giving [fat people] ideas and styles that we can work with ' when the purpose of a style is to look good, and being fat doesn't? I understand that there might be clothes that make fat people look better than other clothes, but those probably aren't the same styles that look good on normal or thin people. Whilst being overweight might be an epidemic, apparently they're poor and hence unlikely to spend on profitable items. There isn't much money to be made in appealing (if it's possible) displays of cheap clothes; shops want to put their cheap, bulk items on a shelf and display the high-priced fashion items. So again, fat people and men won't get as much shop space.
If we force, or persuade, companies to give up shop space for fatties, and it's not as profitable as their current arrangement, that will ensure that the rest of us pay a higher price on our goods, in order to make up the shortfall. I'm not convinced that I should pay more because of the lifestyle choices of others. I pay more because of my lifestyle choices (I have to search for good clothes for longer etc.) and because of natural chance in body shape, and I accept that. If obese people think that they should get to push shopping away from the profitable distribution of goods because of a moral claim they have, then I, as an athlete and a man, have a moral claim for the same reason, and shops should be made to cater to every clothing interest group.
It's probably now obvious what I'll say about theatre, loo and hospital bed sizes. These things cost me money. If the seat is larger than I need, I will pay more than would be necessary for my ticket, because the theatre will have greater upkeep costs on a larger building and greater debt for its construction. If a hospital must invest in specialist equipment for the grossly obese then my taxes are not going on universal care, such as for muscle injuries, broken bones or simply old age. Every adaptation to overweight people in the population costs me money, either through taxes or through higher costs.
When it comes to theatres, I avoid them because I can see it on television or video and I hate being squashed into a space that would be illegally small if it were for livestock, and I'll probably enjoy the extra space. But by the time there's enough space to stop obese people feeling squashed I'll be paying for what is effectively a room of my own, not a seat.
I think the moral thing to do would be to charge obese people more, not try to warp the market to make others pay more. We need the people who have caused these increased costs to pay for them. The most important part of this is in the NHS, which spends a huge amount of money on illnesses related to being overweight. If all that money were free to be spent on research (bearing in mind that these illnesses are mostly chronic ones and so old-age care would not therefore cost more if everyone were fitter and healthier) then the annual health research budget of this country would over double. If people are too poor to afford to be overweight, then as with any other thing that costs, they should just have to do without. There is no justification for expecting a normal life when you're not normal.
No comments:
Post a Comment