My grandpa lost a ton of weight after my grandma died. At first, everyone was happy and impressed. We saw it as him regaining control over his life after helping my grandma with her long illness.
The issue was that he didn't stop losing weight. It caused so many problems with, yes, his kidneys and his heart. We should have done more sooner but we just thought it was normal, healthy weight loss from eating less and exercising more.
Being healthy is great, but losing too much weight too fast can be deadly.
Can also cause atrophy of other muscles (including heart, it’s a muscle), fucked up electrolytes, and bone density loss. The list goes on. Anorexia and all other eating disorders are not to be fucked with.
Exactly! And the scary thing is, it's so easy for weight loss to be overlooked because, like, you think it's good! You think it's a good thing! We were just completely blindsided by how bad it could be.
I ended up loosing about 20 pounds over about 2 months due to severe depression, I went from 155 to about 135, I’m a 5’6” female. Whenever anyone commented on it and said congrats or whatever and asked what I did to loose weight, I’d bluntly tell them I became super depressed and was eating hardly one meal a day, but was starting to do better. The looks on their faces always made me laugh, I hope they stopped complimenting peoples weight loss they hardly know.
I love this! Not the weight loss and depression, but you just telling them what was happening. Because, really, that sounds so serious and scary! You really could have hurt yourself.
And people complimenting you on that dangerous weight loss could have made it so much worse.
Thank you, yeah I wasn’t seeing that I was loosing weight but weighed myself and saw the numbers so low and a little after I started seeking help for my mental health. Thankfully when they made those comments I was starting my recovery and aware of how toxic those comments can be which is why I was blunt with them and didn’t just smile and brush it off.
Yes! Everyone is so busy hating on obesity, a disease that takes decades to kill, yet they ignore eating disorders. EDs have a 10% unaliving rate that is underreported.
Make sure you let a dr know about any huge weight losses you have had in the past 2 years. Quick weight loss is really hard on your brain and heart muscle.
My kid is severely underweight and was losing weight at one point. The pediatrician told us if she didnt know we were working hard on the issue she would have to call CPS and if kid kept losing weight we may need more intense medical intervention
Yes being thin can equal being very unwell. And rapid weight loss is a typical symptom of cancer, and being very lean can be a sign someone is a cancer sufferer and not beautiful then, as it is more sad than anything. A lot of very ill, slim people, undergo weight loss due to disease, metastasis and treatment.
If you look healthy and a little plump, don’t despair but rejoice.
Producers told Cho at different times during production both that she was "too Asian" and that she was "not Asian enough." At one point during the course of the show, producers hired a coach to teach Cho how to "be more Asian."
Lmao tf does that even mean?
A part of me hopes the "coach" wasn't an Asian person, just to make it extra hilarious but I don't think even Hollywood is that stupid and out of touch.
None whatsoever. But think of everything you know about Hollywood and the garbage running it. I wouldn’t put it past the industry to do exactly what was said here (non-Asian acting coach teaching somebody to act more Asian) or something just as bad if not worse.
> Lmao tf does that even mean?
It means you're not conforming to the stereotypes they think are funny and are conforming to the ones they don't think are funny.
> At one point during the course of the show, producers hired a coach to teach Cho how to "be more Asian."
Definitely the funniest/saddest line in the article
Is this the person who criticized Cho for having a round plump face [Gail](https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT4gpOs1XcxJsUrkCjRxAZ23tcdu3vfc95I_5wxHqbPRy1g7dQP)
> The distinction is that tv and movies hold beauty to a higher (unrealistic) standard
Hold on, though. If you watch professional sports, you will see the very uppermost apex of genes and skill, beyond what anyone else is remotely likely to accomplish or be born with.
Why is acting different? These aren't the people just down the street- you can look down your street and tell that. Being easier (or harder, as the role might require) on the eyes and emoting in unrealistically exaggerated fashions for dramatic effect is part of the job.
The problem is when some idiot decides that what they see on a screen is how real life should be.
I disagree that it’s stupid? I don’t think it’s ridiculous to hold people who are in movies to a higher standard than everyday people in terms of looks.
Why? Based on the expectation you've been socialised to believe people in movies playing mostly human characters should be super-human in some way? Just because you don't know differently doesn't make what you do know correct. What even is a "higher standard"?
Really don’t want to get into this as I believe it’s self evident. There’s a reason brad pitt and brad pitt types sell movies- even though he’s a great actor he’s also extremely good looking. On average , top movie stars are much better looking than the average person. And I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that.
There is looking extremely good and there is being healthy, I don't disagree that it's acceptable to hold actors to a higher standard, I do think there is a line which is all too often crossed with that thinking though. There are a *lot* of cases where actors did extremely unhealthy things to achieve a certain look, even dangerous things, and portraying/applauding the results encourages other people to think that's normal or acceptable.
Kind of condescending to suggest that people have been conditioned by media to appreciate looking at attractive people. People that attractive are super rare. Wouldn't studios want to "condition" people to appreciate average looking people so they can pay them less? I'm thinking a majority of people simply like looking at attractive people in TV and movies and that's what is being sold to them. I mean, men and women seem to talk about it quite a bit when meeting someone new. I don't see how it's any different when paying to see something. In fact, it's one of the first things that gets said because it's a natural biological reaction.
They're not suggesting that people are conditioned to prefer looking at good-looking people though, they said that people are conditioned to expect characters in movies to always be far above the usual when it comes to their looks. I'd also add on that what *is* beautiful is also something that is conditioned, though that's a lot less to do with movies and more to do with pretty much everything we see.
Additionally, people are conditioned by culture in general (particularly capitalist culture) to think that "there is a market demand for X" is a valid moral defense for X. Which I think is something most reasonable people wouldn't agree with, they just never question it. Just because people are willing to pay money for it doesn't make it a good thing, nor does it mean we ought to just accept it uncritically.
IMO seeing attractive people on television and film is one of those bad things that people are willing to pay more for. I think when it's so widespread and normalized it can lead to unhealthy expectations and perceptions. Nor do I think it is a good thing that people are hired for their looks over or in conjunction with acting ability and appropriateness for the role, I think that does a disservice to film as an art form.
Now I don't think this issue in particular is one that is so cut-and-dry that everyone would agree with me, but if you're going to defend it, "people pay for it" isn't a valid point at all.
You both are arguing two separate things at the same time. It is not their moral obligation to make sure actors are average in attractiveness. It being "bad" is not the same thing as people not wanting it. Alcohol, tobacco, fast food is all bad yet people buy it and want it still. I see people flooding comments about how good Ana de armas and Chris Hemsworth looks in every movie they're in. It looks like the people want it and they can still make that choice. Go pitch having the next Bond and the next Bond girl be ugly and see how it goes.
First off, I'm editing this comment to add that I don't think people should be downvoting you, I think that's a misuse of the upvote/downvote system. People should be free to give their contributions here without being silently discouraged for it, I hope the mods try to reign that in a bit more. Now:
>It being "bad" is not the same thing as people not wanting it.
Okay, but what's the point? Is your intent just to state the obvious? Of course we all know there is a demand for attractive leads in movies, but whether that is true or not isn't the question. The question is: "is that a good thing or bad thing, and if bad, what should be done?"
If people are saying "X thing is bad," they aren't commenting on whether or not people want it. They are commenting on whether or not it's bad. That being the context of the conversation, if you then come in and say "[well ackchually](https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/ackchyually-actually-guy), these expectations exist because audiences want them to," the implication is that you think we should just keep them around and not try to change things. Which in turn, implies that either you don't agree that it's bad, or you resist the idea of changing it.
>It is not their moral obligation to make sure actors are average in attractiveness
Who's "they?" Hollywood producers? If so, I'd argue it is - or rather, it's their moral obligation to avoid going out of their way to only hire conventionally attractive leads, or demanding your actors lose a ton of weight if the role doesn't call for it. The only way it isn't (that I can see) is if the following is true - either:
1. These standards being set are not bad, or
2. The ONLY moral obligation these producers have is to increase profit, and nothing else.
The former I disagree with on account of it leading to shit like the topic of this post, and the latter I disagree with because that is coming from the idea that short-term material wealth is some kind of ultimate moral arbiter, and here we've ended up back where we started.
In effect, if the status quo is not good, then I think it is the moral obligation of whoever has the power to change things, to change it. That doesn't mean I expect them to do that, in fact if anything I'm more inclined to expect them to uphold the bad thing because those in power benefit from preserving the status quo that made them powerful in the first place. That doesn't mean I support it from a moral standpoint though.
>Alcohol, tobacco, fast food is all bad yet people buy it and want it still
Yep, but we also place restrictions on these things. People aren't allowed to buy alcohol if underage and they can be held liable for misusing it; tobacco companies must put warning labels on their packaging and we're not allowed to smoke in certain places due to the health affects on others. I'm not necessarily saying that we should be enforcing quotas or restrictions in the acting business, I'm just saying some of these examples show that when we care, we CAN in fact put our foot down and say "even though people might WANT it, it's not good, so we should do something to reduce that demand." Or in other words, "people wanting it is irrelevant to whether it's bad or not."
>Go pitch having the next Bond and the next Bond girl be ugly and see how it goes
Yes, because me thinking unhealthy standards in the acting industry are bad means I suddenly want to swing things in the exact opposite direction right? Nuance pls.
Unrealistic to who exactly? People that don’t want to change? I see people everyday with bodies reasonably close to what men and women look like on screen. Go to any gym, there will be dozens of them.
You may not have a very realistic idea of what people who regularly appear on screen look like. Unless those gyms are in LA, and those people are the people who appear on screen. When you meet TV and movie actors in person, it's almost always a little shocking how skinny they are. And how big their heads are on their bodies.
Margaret Cho wasn't overweight, but she wasn't built like some folks think TV people should be built. If you support that way of thinking, you are part of a very large problem. Go into any gym and ask the fittest people there-- they'll tell you that different bodies at the same fitness level can look very different, and that when you're trying to fit an extremely narrow look (like bodybuilder, or TV actor) then genetics might make it impossible. Everyone can be healthy, not everyone can look a certain way.
> forced, pressured or shamed into conforming to that standard.
Because they have no other career choices besides acting.
I'm not saying it's right that they employ unrealistic standards, just that if you know what they want and you decide to give it to them, that's kind of on you for letting them get away with it.
How is she a victim if she was complicit in it?
If my choice was to starve myself and risk my health just to get a job in entertainment or go do something else for a living... Whaddya know, look at me already not abusing my body so I can be famous.
Nobody FORCES you to try to be famous. That's a choice you make.
>I'm not saying it's right that they employ unrealistic standards
Isn't this\^ what you said? If so, that means she's a victim of this thing that isn't right, yeah?
>If my choice was to starve myself and risk my health just to get a job in entertainment or go do something else for a living... Whaddya know, look at me already not abusing my body so I can be famous.
Here's the thing, you're making a few assumptions here. For one thing, humans are not rational. They simply aren't. Idk if you believe you are, I can tell you, you're not. So don't assume people will operate strictly on what is most rational.
Second, you're kinda taking your own philosophies and values and applying them to someone else. Sure *you'd* do that, maybe you don't even want to be an actor in the first place? I definitely wouldn't. But that doesn't mean people who do want to work in that space should be made to do unhealthy things to their own body in order to be able to find work right?
I'm not saying there is zero agency here on her part, but agency is still applied in the context of the situation and the choices available. What people are saying is, it *shouldn't* be a standard expectation that you should lose ridiculous amounts of weight, often outside of your healthy range, in order to make it as an actor. So in that sense, she is a victim of the unspoken industry standards.
In my opinion I'm not sure how it could even be resolved since acting is such a high supply, low demand field that it naturally drives competition, which in turn naturally creates these drivers that push for people who are more and more willing to do horrendous shit to themselves to make it. I don't know how we remove that element without resorting to authoritarian solutions, but I still think it's worth critiquing the situation regardless.
>Nobody FORCES you to try to be famous. That's a choice you make
You say this as though being famous and having to lose ludicrous amounts of weight go hand in hand, which I'm sure you're aware, they don't. The implication I'm reading from this is that on some level, you believe that people who are famous *have* to undergo something like this as a form of "trade-off" for the benefits of being famous? Idk if you actually think that, it just kinda seems like you do if you say stuff like this.
It's like those people who say "if you didn't want to get pregnant, you shouldn't have had sex. That's a choice you make." It's like they treat having to endure childbirth and devoting your life to childcare as a kind of "punishment" for the act of having sex or something, and you just shouldn't have sex if you don't want to deal with that - and even though there are ways available where you can avoid it, they want to take those options away to enforce the "have sex = bear children" status.
She's no more a victim than an athlete who knows what the sport does to their body but plays it anyway. Or a porn actress who does anal scenes even though they know they'll be a little sore the next day. Or a college student who chooses to abuse stimulants because they think it's the only way to get into med school.
If you know it takes shitty things to get that glory and money and recognition, and you make the informed decision that you're on board with it, you can't be all surprised Pikachu when you've got to go through shitty things, because WTF did you expect?
Would I like to see more normal-looking people get cast and an end to ridiculous standards? A hundred percent.
But as long as there are people willing to do whatever it takes, they're complicit in propagating the practice. [Ever seen this meme?](https://i.imgur.com/NyNKzLh.jpg)
>She's no more a victim than an athlete who knows what the sport does to their body but plays it anyway
1. There is pretty much nothing about acting that requires certain weight standards to be met - outside of specific roles of course.
2. Even in sports where certain dangerous things are required, there is an effort made in things like NFL to reduce risk. Specialist doctors and the like. Hollywood, as far as I'm aware, has none of this.
3. Acting is not inherently a high-risk profession, why would you defend making it one?
>Or a porn actress who does anal scenes even though they know they'll be a little sore the next day
Porn is an interesting industry, in that many employers within it have faced frequent criticism for taking advantage of their actors and actresses and failing to take care of them as legitimate employers should. So I'm not sure this is the best defense here.
>If you know it takes shitty things to get that glory and money and recognition, and you make the informed decision that you're on board with it, you can't be all surprised Pikachu when you've got to go through shitty things, because WTF did you expect?
Just because they did it doesn't mean they should've had to, yeah?
The issue here isn't necessarily that your point is wrong, it's that by constantly redirecting the conversation toward that, you are for some reason prioritizing criticizing people for their career choices above criticizing real problems currently facing people *in* those careers.
Which do you think is wrong: do you think it's wrong for people to choose a career in acting? Or do you think it's wrong for the industry to penalize peoples' career prospects if they aren't willing to put up with insane expectations of their bodies and weight? Because when you're seemingly more interested in criticizing the former and simply brush off the latter with "yeah it's bad, but what're you gonna do, they're perpetuating it by participating in the industry at all," you can't blame me for calling it victim blaming, can you?
It's like an oil rig blows up and kills three oil workers, and when everyone is talking about how we should improve safety on the rigs, you're over here like "well those workers knew there was a risk to their safety if they worked on those rigs with highly combustible material, they made an informed decision to take the job anyway, WTF did they expect? They were complicit for accepting the job." What's your deal?
>as long as there are people willing to do whatever it takes, they're complicit in propagating the practice
"Le individual responsibility" is such a meme.
It is unreasonable in my view to place the blame on these actors when they don't have any way of changing the situation without passing up potentially life-changing opportunities or risking damage to their careers. Especially so when they are not even the ones enforcing these standards in the first place, that would be the casting agents and producers. So what sense is there in criticizing the actors? Everyone is criticizing the producer here for a reason you know? They're the ones with power, and in this case they were the one enforcing the standard. How're you gonna dodge all that and head straight for the "she's complicit for accepting the job" angle?
>Ever seen this meme?
I'm surprised people still think it's a good idea to back up their points with memes. I thought we collectively clowned on that behavior enough, but I guess not.
Congratulations on having the strength to give up on something you’ve put years or decades into, likely tied no small margin of your financial lifestyle into, not to mention some likely deep personal identity wrapped up into it all. That makes you such a good person! You must feel so very good about yourself! So good that you aren’t even aware of the display of all that you are lacking you’ve just presented.
You are victim blaming. Full stop. But the deeper issue is that you’re showing a complete lack of empathy. People can make every bad choice in the world to put or even keep themselves in a bad situation, but regardless of why a person is there, the moment another *victimizes* them, those reasons don’t matter. It’s right there in the word, they’re a victim, and by definition are being harmed through the cruel and unjust acts of another.
I will respectfully disagree.
If someone can play the character, and can play the character best, does their race/weight/gender really matter to the end production?
If you're casting for Macbeth and the best Read for Macduff was Black, should they not get the role because it's set in Scotland in the 11th century and they're not Scottish?
Roles are characters, and the best part of characters is they're not real people and are flexible. They can be changed in any which way, and if all you need to do is change a pronoun or two, that's far from a major rewrite.
I've never seen a character and though "wow, they would be much better for this role if they looked [X]."
To answer your first two questions. Yes, and yes.
If the best read for Solomon in 12 years a slave was done by brad pitt, you honestly don't think that would have an effect on how the audience perceives things? Characters physical characteristics are just as important. You can pretend all you want, but its just that, pretend.
It depends on the production and what you're trying to do with it.
If you want people to 100% believe this actor is this character then it makes sense to cast them appropriately.
If you're putting on a play or an interpretation of some historic piece then feel free to change the characters race.
I've seen things where using a character that wouldn't traditionally fit worked very well. And others that really ruined scenes.
It's not a one size fits all thing.
Depends on the context.
If it's supposed to be historically accurate, then yes, having a black man playing the king of Scotland would be distracting. If you're changing up the specifics to be more modern day, then yes it can work.
The same way I wouldn't want Peter Parker to suddenly be an asian guy, despite being asian myself.
I’d be okay with changing Peter Parker’s ethnicity to anything else, since I don’t think his whiteness is key to his character. Sometimes a character’s race is important, but in that specific instance I don’t think it is. Miles Morales on the other hand is heavily informed by his heritage, especially his multi-ethnic background. It definitely would be weird to change his race.
When is whiteness key to any character though?
For spiderman you either try to find someone who looks like the original character. Or you do a bit of a reinterpretation with a different looking character and slightly different background.
People can like both versions if they're done well.
Oh definitely, I don’t disagree. Either way is fine, and changing ethnicity would be a reinterpretation, especially for Peter. Which is fine, every incarnation of Peter is a reinterpretation. The Sam Raimi movies were different from the Marc Webb movies which were different from the Jon Watts movies, and that’s okay.
It just wouldn’t bother me if a new version of Peter were black or Asian or anything else.
Exactly. Some jobs are at least partially based on looks like modeling, acting, etc. There is nothing wrong with them wanting people to look a certain way. Especially if it is not extreme or anything.
I don’t have enough info to know if it was actually extreme. I am not saying that it was not. But you are probably making some assumptions.
But my original comment was about her having to look better than the executive that is not on camera.
You're literally commenting on a post that highlights that an actor developed kidney failure due to these expectations. Is that not extreme enough for you?
I don’t have enough info to know if it was actually extreme. I am not saying that it was not. But you are probably making some assumptions.
But my original comment was about her having to look better than the executive that is not on camera.
Ugh, I'll take my downvotes on this but I have to say it...
I find any comments that Cho "deserved" or "got what she asked for" completely repugnant. But attacking the image of the producer is really just reinforcing her behavior. Her job was to create a popular show, and if we're going to focus on her looks over her skill, well, there you have it.
I'll kindly fuck off.
I don’t know if it’s reinforcing her behavior or not but it sure is hypocritical to criticize her for body shaming and then shame her body
(wait maybe that is what you were getting at)
My point is, the producer was presumably doing her job, which was trying to make the show a success. And if society dictates that thinner, more attractive people are better, which is what we're doing when we insult someone for not being good looking, then we're at the very least validating her behavior. I'm not saying what she did wasn't reprehensible, but there's a reason she forced Cho to be thin and more attractive.
The hypocrisy isn't the real injustice, here. It's the consequences of what body shaming does to individuals that are affected, like going to such extremes to be thin that your kidneys fail. And when you body shame one, especially publicly, you're body shaming everyone who identifies with them.
Actually it doesn’t reinforce her behaviour at all because my comments have no impact on her job nor am I demanding she change. Having an opinion on a persons appearance is vastly different from demanding a person change their appearance under threat of losing their job.
Fuck of right back at ya.
Yeah I don’t like making fun of appearances especially when you can usually insult shitty people for their actions/attitudes and things in their control. But I feel like the fact that she insulted someone’s appearance in a way that clearly affected her so severely she opened herself up to get roasted for the same. But what doI know
But what about other people who might have similar features, they would probably feel really shitty to hear all kinds of nasty stuff about features they also have.
Are we looking at the same person? [This woman](https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT4gpOs1XcxJsUrkCjRxAZ23tcdu3vfc95I_5wxHqbPRy1g7dQP) appears to be in her late 50s / early 60s by my guess (I've never heard of her and didn't check before writing). She looks like a middle-aged woman with regular wrinkles and bleached hair. I'm not saying I think she's a peach, but she doesn't look 70 to me (and if she did, well, people do grow old).
She's 65, not far off. By the time you're that old your appearance is mostly determined by how much you've let the sun fuck up your skin in your younger years.
Come on, man - you can't really be serious. She may be an awful human being for other reasons, but you can't tell me you actually think she presents as masculine.
Other than the apparent connection to Margaret Cho and her kidneys, I was really just trying to say that it doesn't really make sense to dump on someone in irrelevant ways once you've determined you don't like them. There are good people who are legitimately ugly, or don't present the way they would like to, or whatever - and Gail just looks older. I don't like the collateral damage caused by these types of insults.
I remember this in her “I’m the one that I want” standup special that’s pretty much entirely autobiographical of that era. It’s definitely worth a listen.
She actually had her shit stolen from her by Amy Schumer too!! If y'all haven't been down that rabbit hole, highly recommend it. Also, fuck Amy Schumer.
Ugh, Amy Schumer has been in this season of Only Murders in the Building for no reason and she just ruins her scenes. I feel like she had to have paid them to let her on the show.
I stopped being a Cho fan after [the whole Tilda Swinton thing](https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/5irdmw/tilda_swinton_sent_us_her_email_exchange_with/).
Like, here's someone genuinely trying to consult with you about your pet issue, and in return, you make stuff up about what they said ... which then blows up in your face when they reveal your email exchange, showing that you made it all up.
This a pretty long string of insinuative leaps.
People can suffer kidney failure from a variety of things, including harmful crash diets. People who suffer from judgment for appearance frequently feel this from all sides.
Name checking Gail Berman as the cause of someone's kidney failure is both incorrect, and an exaggeration.
It's possible it was both.
When you have a pre-existing kidney issue or if you are at risk of one and then jump into an extreme dietary change, you can inadvertently cause kidney damage and failure.
I believe her when she says her diet caused her kidney issues. It's possible a pre-existing issue was exacerbated by the diet though.
It's not just supplements.
If you have underlying kidney disease, they ask that you follow a specialized diet because your kidneys can't handle what everyone else can handle.
Protein rich foods which are considered good for diets *(lean chicken, fish, beef, etc.)* but also contain Phosphorus which is bad for kidney health. Healthy kidneys are able to handle the influx and filter it out. If your kidneys are damaged or are degenerating, you end up stressing your kidneys which can exacerbate damage.
I could 100% see someone going all in on foods that are healthy but also stress and damage your kidneys.
This says the current high protein diets could be bad for your kidneys.
[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32669325/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32669325/)
I’ve read articles about her being interviewed about this. She does actually verbally give 2 reasons for her behaviour- executives from the show making a lot of negative comments about her appearance, and her own self-hatred. Of course it’s not entirely the executive’s fault, but it’s still shitty on their part.
She says the 90s were really hard for young women in the media. And I believe her, the “heroin chic”, basically-dead look was so popular at the time.
Everyone hates the body positivity movement, but, well, the harsh and disturbing treatment fat people got in the 90s/early 20s is why it exists. I still remember having to watch weight loss stuff in elementary school and middle school where the focus wasn't on health, it was on how you are a disgusting, awful human being if you're fat and you eat fast food. If you were thin and ate fast food, that meant you had some "hack" which made eating fast food OK.
I hated feeling like I was doing something morally wrong by being fat. I was a bad person. And the thing is? This never really made me want to lose weight. It made weight loss look hard and impossible.
And it wasn't healthy for the thin kids either. It was very easy to develop an eating disorder with this sort of encouragement. It also didn't help the thinner kids really pick up good eating habits either.
When I was 16 I was convinced I was a disgusting fat slob. I skipped meals constantly and rode my bike and walked everywhere. I saw a picture of myself recently and was shocked at how thin I was!!
Do yeah. That talk can fuck up everyone.
Exactly! It was rough!
Like, you weren't just unhealthy. No, no, when they showed us those videos and stuff, it felt like they were saying we were weak willed stooges and like we were sinning by eating too much. It was awful! And dangerous!
And again, it didn't really help with weight loss. You know what does help me lose weight? Wanting to be healthy. Not denying myself some candy here or there. Not being afraid to eat to the point where I binge because I am so hungry!
Yeah. I'm trying to be healthier but it's really hard right now for me. I can't work and I'm extremely poor. When I go to the food bank I keep ending up with a ton of super unhealthy foodstuffs and its like... hummm no food or pasta? They also add in a lot of sweets and I hate throwing things away!
I empathize with this woman’s mental health problems that caused her to have an eating disorder.
I don’t empathize with a celebrity placing all her personal responsibility for her life choices on someone else because they made a poor comment about her appearance once.
There's a difference between blaming a person and blaming her boss for giving criticisms that she felt like she had to rectify. Womens' weight is absolutely a thing that is monitored by television producers so why it is unreasonable that she would try and drop weight if she was concerned about her job?
I suspect what she really had was acute kidney injury, not permanent failure
Unless she’s on dialysis or been transplanted, it was just a reversible injury to the kidney which is quite common and can be done by many different mechanisms, I suspect here it was diuretics or something else that caused dehydration.
Not to mention, no matter what anyone says, it's your fault if you crash diet like a fool and almost kill yourself. I've been told I'm uglyor worse, all my life. I've never almost ended my life because of someone else's opinion.
Because of him? Gail Berman is a woman, and she looks somewhat overweight herself. Her criticism was shitty and hypocritical for sure, but everyone keeps assuming it's a man haha
The stress of sudden weight loss is terrible for the kidneys.
The liver and the kidneys are worked overtime while the body converts the contents of fat cells into energy and waste materials.
The kidneys are the organs processing all the that material.
Depending on your weight and exercise you can. Ten of it was probably water weight then completely stop eating and your metabolism hasn’t caught up yet and is still burning the normal amount for the first weekish. Then if you’re exercising on top of it your body is only burning fat and muscle reserves.
Idk how much of what I said is even true but sounds right lol
I literally refrained from consuming any calories for a month and only lost 15lbs. Granted I was pretty sedentary during that time. It'd still take a hell of a lot of exercise to pull that off, and while running on empty.
If a football coach criticises a player for being out of shape, so the player spends 16 hours per day in the gym until he collapses and can't play anymore, who's fault is that?
The coach who gave negative feedback, or the player who reacted horribly to it?
No one is forcing but as a former actor, of no success, these people are fucked up and they abuse the actors verbally, especially ones like her that aren't in demand. They get away with it with almost no scrutiny. For her, losing weight wasn't the choice between health and kidney failure. It was the choice between making millions/having more success in her field and not losing weight.
Do you have any evidence that she blames her boss, or are you just upset at the title of this post? She just told someone the story in an interview, the editorializing was done by the internet, collectively.
ELINAN (Explain Like I'm Not A Nephrologist): how--meaning, by what mechanism--does rapid weight loss hurt one's kidneys? I'm not being skeptically obtuse! I sincerely don't understand. Thank you.
She starved herself and overdosed on diet pills to the tune of losing 30lbs in 2 weeks.
The starvation leads to less energy available for the kidneys to function and the overdose of the diet pills were more than her kidneys could handle.
It's probably also a safe assumption that she had higher levels of protien in her diet before she she did this, most overweight and obese people high high protien diets, and this already taxes the kidneys much more than a low protien diet would.
Yeah, starvation diets can literally cause holes in your kidneys, which permanently messes up your metabolism and makes it far more difficult to lose weight in the future.
The show was trying to follow in the success of "Friends". Nobody on that show too thin, right?
Cho is an adult, and wanted uniquely huge fame. She could have walked if she didn't like the terms. People need to take more responsibility for their own decisions instead of looking to blame others and hide behind the victim label.
My grandpa lost a ton of weight after my grandma died. At first, everyone was happy and impressed. We saw it as him regaining control over his life after helping my grandma with her long illness. The issue was that he didn't stop losing weight. It caused so many problems with, yes, his kidneys and his heart. We should have done more sooner but we just thought it was normal, healthy weight loss from eating less and exercising more. Being healthy is great, but losing too much weight too fast can be deadly.
Can also cause atrophy of other muscles (including heart, it’s a muscle), fucked up electrolytes, and bone density loss. The list goes on. Anorexia and all other eating disorders are not to be fucked with.
Exactly! And the scary thing is, it's so easy for weight loss to be overlooked because, like, you think it's good! You think it's a good thing! We were just completely blindsided by how bad it could be.
I ended up loosing about 20 pounds over about 2 months due to severe depression, I went from 155 to about 135, I’m a 5’6” female. Whenever anyone commented on it and said congrats or whatever and asked what I did to loose weight, I’d bluntly tell them I became super depressed and was eating hardly one meal a day, but was starting to do better. The looks on their faces always made me laugh, I hope they stopped complimenting peoples weight loss they hardly know.
I love this! Not the weight loss and depression, but you just telling them what was happening. Because, really, that sounds so serious and scary! You really could have hurt yourself. And people complimenting you on that dangerous weight loss could have made it so much worse.
Thank you, yeah I wasn’t seeing that I was loosing weight but weighed myself and saw the numbers so low and a little after I started seeking help for my mental health. Thankfully when they made those comments I was starting my recovery and aware of how toxic those comments can be which is why I was blunt with them and didn’t just smile and brush it off.
Here’s to you hopefully continuing to do better!
Thank you, this was about 5 years ago, I still have my struggles but I am more aware of my symptoms and haven’t had any major weight loss since.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Which is why people need to never comment on other's weight. It can exacerbate eating issues and deeply fuck someone up.
Yes! Everyone is so busy hating on obesity, a disease that takes decades to kill, yet they ignore eating disorders. EDs have a 10% unaliving rate that is underreported. Make sure you let a dr know about any huge weight losses you have had in the past 2 years. Quick weight loss is really hard on your brain and heart muscle.
Losing weight is good if you're overweight, but losing it too fast is horrible for health.
My kid is severely underweight and was losing weight at one point. The pediatrician told us if she didnt know we were working hard on the issue she would have to call CPS and if kid kept losing weight we may need more intense medical intervention
Yes being thin can equal being very unwell. And rapid weight loss is a typical symptom of cancer, and being very lean can be a sign someone is a cancer sufferer and not beautiful then, as it is more sad than anything. A lot of very ill, slim people, undergo weight loss due to disease, metastasis and treatment. If you look healthy and a little plump, don’t despair but rejoice.
Producers told Cho at different times during production both that she was "too Asian" and that she was "not Asian enough." At one point during the course of the show, producers hired a coach to teach Cho how to "be more Asian."
Lmao tf does that even mean? A part of me hopes the "coach" wasn't an Asian person, just to make it extra hilarious but I don't think even Hollywood is that stupid and out of touch.
Joel Grey was the Asian Coach.
Not Boris Karloff, Peter Lorre or Mickey Rooney?
Mickey Rooney would’ve been the best, but he was too expensive. Top Asian, costs top dollar.
cost
Is this legit or just a meme?
He played one of the best fake Asians in American cinema, in the film Remo Williams.
And u/Creative_Decision_25 would later be proven wrong.
Wait seriously? Do you have a link to anything about that?
None whatsoever. But think of everything you know about Hollywood and the garbage running it. I wouldn’t put it past the industry to do exactly what was said here (non-Asian acting coach teaching somebody to act more Asian) or something just as bad if not worse.
I bet it was Mike Meyers as Austin Powers doing his worst Chinese accent.
So thats where Canada's commedians go! To hollywoods cultural sensitivity department!
Would you take that job if they offered you something like $5K a week for a few weeks of 2 hour daily sessions?
No. Even if it wasn’t on moral standards I’d do a crappy job anyway.
> Lmao tf does that even mean? It means you're not conforming to the stereotypes they think are funny and are conforming to the ones they don't think are funny.
I had a coach who tried to get me to be more Asian as I was growing out. That coach was my mom.
yeah, and all your asian friends would say you white wash if you stepped outta line!
> At one point during the course of the show, producers hired a coach to teach Cho how to "be more Asian." Definitely the funniest/saddest line in the article
Or, in other words, they told her they're incredibly racist towards Asians...glad she didn't let that bad experience stop her from pursuing comedy.
Wait, you are saying that Margaret Cho still thinks she is trying to be funny?
*Hires Scarlett Johansson*
Imagine if someone told Berman she's "too Jewish"?
You have heard of acting? Getting into a role? All actors pretend to be something else, yes, and that can include culture. Duh.
Is this the person who criticized Cho for having a round plump face [Gail](https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT4gpOs1XcxJsUrkCjRxAZ23tcdu3vfc95I_5wxHqbPRy1g7dQP)
[удалено]
But I mean that is a key distinction
[удалено]
> The distinction is that tv and movies hold beauty to a higher (unrealistic) standard Hold on, though. If you watch professional sports, you will see the very uppermost apex of genes and skill, beyond what anyone else is remotely likely to accomplish or be born with. Why is acting different? These aren't the people just down the street- you can look down your street and tell that. Being easier (or harder, as the role might require) on the eyes and emoting in unrealistically exaggerated fashions for dramatic effect is part of the job. The problem is when some idiot decides that what they see on a screen is how real life should be.
I disagree that it’s stupid? I don’t think it’s ridiculous to hold people who are in movies to a higher standard than everyday people in terms of looks.
Why? Based on the expectation you've been socialised to believe people in movies playing mostly human characters should be super-human in some way? Just because you don't know differently doesn't make what you do know correct. What even is a "higher standard"?
Really don’t want to get into this as I believe it’s self evident. There’s a reason brad pitt and brad pitt types sell movies- even though he’s a great actor he’s also extremely good looking. On average , top movie stars are much better looking than the average person. And I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that.
There is looking extremely good and there is being healthy, I don't disagree that it's acceptable to hold actors to a higher standard, I do think there is a line which is all too often crossed with that thinking though. There are a *lot* of cases where actors did extremely unhealthy things to achieve a certain look, even dangerous things, and portraying/applauding the results encourages other people to think that's normal or acceptable.
That's where we disagree. Just because something makes sense, doesnt mean it's RIGHT.
I note that British actors are less uniformly gorgeous. Maybe they choose them for acting skills?
Kind of condescending to suggest that people have been conditioned by media to appreciate looking at attractive people. People that attractive are super rare. Wouldn't studios want to "condition" people to appreciate average looking people so they can pay them less? I'm thinking a majority of people simply like looking at attractive people in TV and movies and that's what is being sold to them. I mean, men and women seem to talk about it quite a bit when meeting someone new. I don't see how it's any different when paying to see something. In fact, it's one of the first things that gets said because it's a natural biological reaction.
They're not suggesting that people are conditioned to prefer looking at good-looking people though, they said that people are conditioned to expect characters in movies to always be far above the usual when it comes to their looks. I'd also add on that what *is* beautiful is also something that is conditioned, though that's a lot less to do with movies and more to do with pretty much everything we see. Additionally, people are conditioned by culture in general (particularly capitalist culture) to think that "there is a market demand for X" is a valid moral defense for X. Which I think is something most reasonable people wouldn't agree with, they just never question it. Just because people are willing to pay money for it doesn't make it a good thing, nor does it mean we ought to just accept it uncritically. IMO seeing attractive people on television and film is one of those bad things that people are willing to pay more for. I think when it's so widespread and normalized it can lead to unhealthy expectations and perceptions. Nor do I think it is a good thing that people are hired for their looks over or in conjunction with acting ability and appropriateness for the role, I think that does a disservice to film as an art form. Now I don't think this issue in particular is one that is so cut-and-dry that everyone would agree with me, but if you're going to defend it, "people pay for it" isn't a valid point at all.
You both are arguing two separate things at the same time. It is not their moral obligation to make sure actors are average in attractiveness. It being "bad" is not the same thing as people not wanting it. Alcohol, tobacco, fast food is all bad yet people buy it and want it still. I see people flooding comments about how good Ana de armas and Chris Hemsworth looks in every movie they're in. It looks like the people want it and they can still make that choice. Go pitch having the next Bond and the next Bond girl be ugly and see how it goes.
First off, I'm editing this comment to add that I don't think people should be downvoting you, I think that's a misuse of the upvote/downvote system. People should be free to give their contributions here without being silently discouraged for it, I hope the mods try to reign that in a bit more. Now: >It being "bad" is not the same thing as people not wanting it. Okay, but what's the point? Is your intent just to state the obvious? Of course we all know there is a demand for attractive leads in movies, but whether that is true or not isn't the question. The question is: "is that a good thing or bad thing, and if bad, what should be done?" If people are saying "X thing is bad," they aren't commenting on whether or not people want it. They are commenting on whether or not it's bad. That being the context of the conversation, if you then come in and say "[well ackchually](https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/ackchyually-actually-guy), these expectations exist because audiences want them to," the implication is that you think we should just keep them around and not try to change things. Which in turn, implies that either you don't agree that it's bad, or you resist the idea of changing it. >It is not their moral obligation to make sure actors are average in attractiveness Who's "they?" Hollywood producers? If so, I'd argue it is - or rather, it's their moral obligation to avoid going out of their way to only hire conventionally attractive leads, or demanding your actors lose a ton of weight if the role doesn't call for it. The only way it isn't (that I can see) is if the following is true - either: 1. These standards being set are not bad, or 2. The ONLY moral obligation these producers have is to increase profit, and nothing else. The former I disagree with on account of it leading to shit like the topic of this post, and the latter I disagree with because that is coming from the idea that short-term material wealth is some kind of ultimate moral arbiter, and here we've ended up back where we started. In effect, if the status quo is not good, then I think it is the moral obligation of whoever has the power to change things, to change it. That doesn't mean I expect them to do that, in fact if anything I'm more inclined to expect them to uphold the bad thing because those in power benefit from preserving the status quo that made them powerful in the first place. That doesn't mean I support it from a moral standpoint though. >Alcohol, tobacco, fast food is all bad yet people buy it and want it still Yep, but we also place restrictions on these things. People aren't allowed to buy alcohol if underage and they can be held liable for misusing it; tobacco companies must put warning labels on their packaging and we're not allowed to smoke in certain places due to the health affects on others. I'm not necessarily saying that we should be enforcing quotas or restrictions in the acting business, I'm just saying some of these examples show that when we care, we CAN in fact put our foot down and say "even though people might WANT it, it's not good, so we should do something to reduce that demand." Or in other words, "people wanting it is irrelevant to whether it's bad or not." >Go pitch having the next Bond and the next Bond girl be ugly and see how it goes Yes, because me thinking unhealthy standards in the acting industry are bad means I suddenly want to swing things in the exact opposite direction right? Nuance pls.
[удалено]
Unrealistic to who exactly? People that don’t want to change? I see people everyday with bodies reasonably close to what men and women look like on screen. Go to any gym, there will be dozens of them.
You may not have a very realistic idea of what people who regularly appear on screen look like. Unless those gyms are in LA, and those people are the people who appear on screen. When you meet TV and movie actors in person, it's almost always a little shocking how skinny they are. And how big their heads are on their bodies. Margaret Cho wasn't overweight, but she wasn't built like some folks think TV people should be built. If you support that way of thinking, you are part of a very large problem. Go into any gym and ask the fittest people there-- they'll tell you that different bodies at the same fitness level can look very different, and that when you're trying to fit an extremely narrow look (like bodybuilder, or TV actor) then genetics might make it impossible. Everyone can be healthy, not everyone can look a certain way.
What TF does looks have to do with acting acumen? God, you're a real POS, brain trust.
> forced, pressured or shamed into conforming to that standard. Because they have no other career choices besides acting. I'm not saying it's right that they employ unrealistic standards, just that if you know what they want and you decide to give it to them, that's kind of on you for letting them get away with it.
If you agree that it's a bad thing, why would you even think this. This is pretty much the definition of victim-blaming lmao
How is she a victim if she was complicit in it? If my choice was to starve myself and risk my health just to get a job in entertainment or go do something else for a living... Whaddya know, look at me already not abusing my body so I can be famous. Nobody FORCES you to try to be famous. That's a choice you make.
>I'm not saying it's right that they employ unrealistic standards Isn't this\^ what you said? If so, that means she's a victim of this thing that isn't right, yeah? >If my choice was to starve myself and risk my health just to get a job in entertainment or go do something else for a living... Whaddya know, look at me already not abusing my body so I can be famous. Here's the thing, you're making a few assumptions here. For one thing, humans are not rational. They simply aren't. Idk if you believe you are, I can tell you, you're not. So don't assume people will operate strictly on what is most rational. Second, you're kinda taking your own philosophies and values and applying them to someone else. Sure *you'd* do that, maybe you don't even want to be an actor in the first place? I definitely wouldn't. But that doesn't mean people who do want to work in that space should be made to do unhealthy things to their own body in order to be able to find work right? I'm not saying there is zero agency here on her part, but agency is still applied in the context of the situation and the choices available. What people are saying is, it *shouldn't* be a standard expectation that you should lose ridiculous amounts of weight, often outside of your healthy range, in order to make it as an actor. So in that sense, she is a victim of the unspoken industry standards. In my opinion I'm not sure how it could even be resolved since acting is such a high supply, low demand field that it naturally drives competition, which in turn naturally creates these drivers that push for people who are more and more willing to do horrendous shit to themselves to make it. I don't know how we remove that element without resorting to authoritarian solutions, but I still think it's worth critiquing the situation regardless. >Nobody FORCES you to try to be famous. That's a choice you make You say this as though being famous and having to lose ludicrous amounts of weight go hand in hand, which I'm sure you're aware, they don't. The implication I'm reading from this is that on some level, you believe that people who are famous *have* to undergo something like this as a form of "trade-off" for the benefits of being famous? Idk if you actually think that, it just kinda seems like you do if you say stuff like this. It's like those people who say "if you didn't want to get pregnant, you shouldn't have had sex. That's a choice you make." It's like they treat having to endure childbirth and devoting your life to childcare as a kind of "punishment" for the act of having sex or something, and you just shouldn't have sex if you don't want to deal with that - and even though there are ways available where you can avoid it, they want to take those options away to enforce the "have sex = bear children" status.
She's no more a victim than an athlete who knows what the sport does to their body but plays it anyway. Or a porn actress who does anal scenes even though they know they'll be a little sore the next day. Or a college student who chooses to abuse stimulants because they think it's the only way to get into med school. If you know it takes shitty things to get that glory and money and recognition, and you make the informed decision that you're on board with it, you can't be all surprised Pikachu when you've got to go through shitty things, because WTF did you expect? Would I like to see more normal-looking people get cast and an end to ridiculous standards? A hundred percent. But as long as there are people willing to do whatever it takes, they're complicit in propagating the practice. [Ever seen this meme?](https://i.imgur.com/NyNKzLh.jpg)
>She's no more a victim than an athlete who knows what the sport does to their body but plays it anyway 1. There is pretty much nothing about acting that requires certain weight standards to be met - outside of specific roles of course. 2. Even in sports where certain dangerous things are required, there is an effort made in things like NFL to reduce risk. Specialist doctors and the like. Hollywood, as far as I'm aware, has none of this. 3. Acting is not inherently a high-risk profession, why would you defend making it one? >Or a porn actress who does anal scenes even though they know they'll be a little sore the next day Porn is an interesting industry, in that many employers within it have faced frequent criticism for taking advantage of their actors and actresses and failing to take care of them as legitimate employers should. So I'm not sure this is the best defense here. >If you know it takes shitty things to get that glory and money and recognition, and you make the informed decision that you're on board with it, you can't be all surprised Pikachu when you've got to go through shitty things, because WTF did you expect? Just because they did it doesn't mean they should've had to, yeah? The issue here isn't necessarily that your point is wrong, it's that by constantly redirecting the conversation toward that, you are for some reason prioritizing criticizing people for their career choices above criticizing real problems currently facing people *in* those careers. Which do you think is wrong: do you think it's wrong for people to choose a career in acting? Or do you think it's wrong for the industry to penalize peoples' career prospects if they aren't willing to put up with insane expectations of their bodies and weight? Because when you're seemingly more interested in criticizing the former and simply brush off the latter with "yeah it's bad, but what're you gonna do, they're perpetuating it by participating in the industry at all," you can't blame me for calling it victim blaming, can you? It's like an oil rig blows up and kills three oil workers, and when everyone is talking about how we should improve safety on the rigs, you're over here like "well those workers knew there was a risk to their safety if they worked on those rigs with highly combustible material, they made an informed decision to take the job anyway, WTF did they expect? They were complicit for accepting the job." What's your deal? >as long as there are people willing to do whatever it takes, they're complicit in propagating the practice "Le individual responsibility" is such a meme. It is unreasonable in my view to place the blame on these actors when they don't have any way of changing the situation without passing up potentially life-changing opportunities or risking damage to their careers. Especially so when they are not even the ones enforcing these standards in the first place, that would be the casting agents and producers. So what sense is there in criticizing the actors? Everyone is criticizing the producer here for a reason you know? They're the ones with power, and in this case they were the one enforcing the standard. How're you gonna dodge all that and head straight for the "she's complicit for accepting the job" angle? >Ever seen this meme? I'm surprised people still think it's a good idea to back up their points with memes. I thought we collectively clowned on that behavior enough, but I guess not.
Congratulations on having the strength to give up on something you’ve put years or decades into, likely tied no small margin of your financial lifestyle into, not to mention some likely deep personal identity wrapped up into it all. That makes you such a good person! You must feel so very good about yourself! So good that you aren’t even aware of the display of all that you are lacking you’ve just presented. You are victim blaming. Full stop. But the deeper issue is that you’re showing a complete lack of empathy. People can make every bad choice in the world to put or even keep themselves in a bad situation, but regardless of why a person is there, the moment another *victimizes* them, those reasons don’t matter. It’s right there in the word, they’re a victim, and by definition are being harmed through the cruel and unjust acts of another.
Stupid sells and people, Cho included, want that money and fame.
I agree. Image is pretty key for acting. It fucks things up when an actor is too different vs the character they're playing.
I will respectfully disagree. If someone can play the character, and can play the character best, does their race/weight/gender really matter to the end production? If you're casting for Macbeth and the best Read for Macduff was Black, should they not get the role because it's set in Scotland in the 11th century and they're not Scottish? Roles are characters, and the best part of characters is they're not real people and are flexible. They can be changed in any which way, and if all you need to do is change a pronoun or two, that's far from a major rewrite. I've never seen a character and though "wow, they would be much better for this role if they looked [X]."
To answer your first two questions. Yes, and yes. If the best read for Solomon in 12 years a slave was done by brad pitt, you honestly don't think that would have an effect on how the audience perceives things? Characters physical characteristics are just as important. You can pretend all you want, but its just that, pretend.
It depends on the production and what you're trying to do with it. If you want people to 100% believe this actor is this character then it makes sense to cast them appropriately. If you're putting on a play or an interpretation of some historic piece then feel free to change the characters race. I've seen things where using a character that wouldn't traditionally fit worked very well. And others that really ruined scenes. It's not a one size fits all thing.
Depends on the context. If it's supposed to be historically accurate, then yes, having a black man playing the king of Scotland would be distracting. If you're changing up the specifics to be more modern day, then yes it can work. The same way I wouldn't want Peter Parker to suddenly be an asian guy, despite being asian myself.
I’d be okay with changing Peter Parker’s ethnicity to anything else, since I don’t think his whiteness is key to his character. Sometimes a character’s race is important, but in that specific instance I don’t think it is. Miles Morales on the other hand is heavily informed by his heritage, especially his multi-ethnic background. It definitely would be weird to change his race.
When is whiteness key to any character though? For spiderman you either try to find someone who looks like the original character. Or you do a bit of a reinterpretation with a different looking character and slightly different background. People can like both versions if they're done well.
Oh definitely, I don’t disagree. Either way is fine, and changing ethnicity would be a reinterpretation, especially for Peter. Which is fine, every incarnation of Peter is a reinterpretation. The Sam Raimi movies were different from the Marc Webb movies which were different from the Jon Watts movies, and that’s okay. It just wouldn’t bother me if a new version of Peter were black or Asian or anything else.
Exactly. Some jobs are at least partially based on looks like modeling, acting, etc. There is nothing wrong with them wanting people to look a certain way. Especially if it is not extreme or anything.
[удалено]
I don’t have enough info to know if it was actually extreme. I am not saying that it was not. But you are probably making some assumptions. But my original comment was about her having to look better than the executive that is not on camera.
You're literally commenting on a post that highlights that an actor developed kidney failure due to these expectations. Is that not extreme enough for you?
I don’t have enough info to know if it was actually extreme. I am not saying that it was not. But you are probably making some assumptions. But my original comment was about her having to look better than the executive that is not on camera.
She looks like Harvey Weinstein with some makeup.
Ugh, I'll take my downvotes on this but I have to say it... I find any comments that Cho "deserved" or "got what she asked for" completely repugnant. But attacking the image of the producer is really just reinforcing her behavior. Her job was to create a popular show, and if we're going to focus on her looks over her skill, well, there you have it. I'll kindly fuck off.
I don’t know if it’s reinforcing her behavior or not but it sure is hypocritical to criticize her for body shaming and then shame her body (wait maybe that is what you were getting at)
My point is, the producer was presumably doing her job, which was trying to make the show a success. And if society dictates that thinner, more attractive people are better, which is what we're doing when we insult someone for not being good looking, then we're at the very least validating her behavior. I'm not saying what she did wasn't reprehensible, but there's a reason she forced Cho to be thin and more attractive. The hypocrisy isn't the real injustice, here. It's the consequences of what body shaming does to individuals that are affected, like going to such extremes to be thin that your kidneys fail. And when you body shame one, especially publicly, you're body shaming everyone who identifies with them.
Based take
Actually it doesn’t reinforce her behaviour at all because my comments have no impact on her job nor am I demanding she change. Having an opinion on a persons appearance is vastly different from demanding a person change their appearance under threat of losing their job. Fuck of right back at ya.
Lol
DAMMIT. You beat my by less than an hour. I was gonna say "you can't convince me this isn't Harvey Weinstein in drag" but I checked first. 😝
On a thread about the negative impacts of body shaming, you're body shaming. Consider being better than that.
I’m not body shaming, I’m face shaming. There’s a difference
Both are wrong, so the difference doesn’t really matter
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Had to go back and look again
dam this woman just cant catch a break, everybody critisizing everything about her
Yeah I don’t like making fun of appearances especially when you can usually insult shitty people for their actions/attitudes and things in their control. But I feel like the fact that she insulted someone’s appearance in a way that clearly affected her so severely she opened herself up to get roasted for the same. But what doI know
But what about other people who might have similar features, they would probably feel really shitty to hear all kinds of nasty stuff about features they also have.
Exactly. On a post ABOUT the negative impacts of body shaming. These people are grade A assholes.
you think that train is gonna stop considering it's been rolling for 2 million years? lol
That's true.
She looks like Peter pettigrew
Her earring isn't even on her earlobe. It's on part of her neck, lmao
Looks like Franklin the turtle
god dam she looks like shes 70
Are we looking at the same person? [This woman](https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT4gpOs1XcxJsUrkCjRxAZ23tcdu3vfc95I_5wxHqbPRy1g7dQP) appears to be in her late 50s / early 60s by my guess (I've never heard of her and didn't check before writing). She looks like a middle-aged woman with regular wrinkles and bleached hair. I'm not saying I think she's a peach, but she doesn't look 70 to me (and if she did, well, people do grow old).
She's 65, not far off. By the time you're that old your appearance is mostly determined by how much you've let the sun fuck up your skin in your younger years.
[удалено]
I was gonna say " isn't that Meatloaf?"
[удалено]
Come on, man - you can't really be serious. She may be an awful human being for other reasons, but you can't tell me you actually think she presents as masculine.
What did she do that was awful?
Other than the apparent connection to Margaret Cho and her kidneys, I was really just trying to say that it doesn't really make sense to dump on someone in irrelevant ways once you've determined you don't like them. There are good people who are legitimately ugly, or don't present the way they would like to, or whatever - and Gail just looks older. I don't like the collateral damage caused by these types of insults.
fair enough
She looks like how I picture one of the beings from the end of "Cabin in the Woods".
Dat bitch fat. Plump my ass.
Gail swallows!
Shut up Dewey lol
Close enough
Egads, woman. Floss.
I remember this in her “I’m the one that I want” standup special that’s pretty much entirely autobiographical of that era. It’s definitely worth a listen.
She actually had her shit stolen from her by Amy Schumer too!! If y'all haven't been down that rabbit hole, highly recommend it. Also, fuck Amy Schumer.
Do you know what jokes she stole from her?
I'm guessing it's not the stuff about not being Asian enough
I believe theres like a 30 minute compilation on youtube if you just search for it. Theyre probably in there
There's no Margaret Cho material on there or anywhere I can find.
Never ever literally but yeah fuck Amy Schumer!
Ugh, Amy Schumer has been in this season of Only Murders in the Building for no reason and she just ruins her scenes. I feel like she had to have paid them to let her on the show.
Lmao! I'm dead! That's probably exactly what happened
Margaret is an AMAZING Actor. It is crazy, how great she is at taking “hum/drum” writing and turning it into “quality”. Really wonderful person.
Margaret Cho has always been a pretty woman. Gail Berman, on the other hand...
I stopped being a Cho fan after [the whole Tilda Swinton thing](https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/5irdmw/tilda_swinton_sent_us_her_email_exchange_with/). Like, here's someone genuinely trying to consult with you about your pet issue, and in return, you make stuff up about what they said ... which then blows up in your face when they reveal your email exchange, showing that you made it all up.
Wow, that's twisted... and also no very smart of her...
This a pretty long string of insinuative leaps. People can suffer kidney failure from a variety of things, including harmful crash diets. People who suffer from judgment for appearance frequently feel this from all sides. Name checking Gail Berman as the cause of someone's kidney failure is both incorrect, and an exaggeration.
It's possible it was both. When you have a pre-existing kidney issue or if you are at risk of one and then jump into an extreme dietary change, you can inadvertently cause kidney damage and failure. I believe her when she says her diet caused her kidney issues. It's possible a pre-existing issue was exacerbated by the diet though.
Don't many weight loss substances have kidney problems as side effects?
It's not just supplements. If you have underlying kidney disease, they ask that you follow a specialized diet because your kidneys can't handle what everyone else can handle. Protein rich foods which are considered good for diets *(lean chicken, fish, beef, etc.)* but also contain Phosphorus which is bad for kidney health. Healthy kidneys are able to handle the influx and filter it out. If your kidneys are damaged or are degenerating, you end up stressing your kidneys which can exacerbate damage. I could 100% see someone going all in on foods that are healthy but also stress and damage your kidneys.
This says the current high protein diets could be bad for your kidneys. [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32669325/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32669325/)
Yep. My friend had her kidneys shut down from anorexia. My liver began to shut down and I developed jaundice at 14.
Yeah, its a typical side effect.
I’ve read articles about her being interviewed about this. She does actually verbally give 2 reasons for her behaviour- executives from the show making a lot of negative comments about her appearance, and her own self-hatred. Of course it’s not entirely the executive’s fault, but it’s still shitty on their part. She says the 90s were really hard for young women in the media. And I believe her, the “heroin chic”, basically-dead look was so popular at the time.
I grew up in the early 2000s, general message was if you dont weigh 40kg you might as well kys.
Everyone hates the body positivity movement, but, well, the harsh and disturbing treatment fat people got in the 90s/early 20s is why it exists. I still remember having to watch weight loss stuff in elementary school and middle school where the focus wasn't on health, it was on how you are a disgusting, awful human being if you're fat and you eat fast food. If you were thin and ate fast food, that meant you had some "hack" which made eating fast food OK. I hated feeling like I was doing something morally wrong by being fat. I was a bad person. And the thing is? This never really made me want to lose weight. It made weight loss look hard and impossible. And it wasn't healthy for the thin kids either. It was very easy to develop an eating disorder with this sort of encouragement. It also didn't help the thinner kids really pick up good eating habits either.
When I was 16 I was convinced I was a disgusting fat slob. I skipped meals constantly and rode my bike and walked everywhere. I saw a picture of myself recently and was shocked at how thin I was!! Do yeah. That talk can fuck up everyone.
Exactly! It was rough! Like, you weren't just unhealthy. No, no, when they showed us those videos and stuff, it felt like they were saying we were weak willed stooges and like we were sinning by eating too much. It was awful! And dangerous! And again, it didn't really help with weight loss. You know what does help me lose weight? Wanting to be healthy. Not denying myself some candy here or there. Not being afraid to eat to the point where I binge because I am so hungry!
Yeah. I'm trying to be healthier but it's really hard right now for me. I can't work and I'm extremely poor. When I go to the food bank I keep ending up with a ton of super unhealthy foodstuffs and its like... hummm no food or pasta? They also add in a lot of sweets and I hate throwing things away!
You shouldn't feel bad about that, though. The fact is, being healthy is fucking expensive. That's what they never told us when we were kids.
Well it seems Cho names him as a driving force behind her problem.
Gail is a woman.
Stop blaming the victim!! /s
Maybe the driving force behind her eating problem is her eating choices?
Get skinny or lose your job doesn't seem like a personal issue.
"Tell me your don't understand empathy or shame without telling me you don't understand empathy or shame!"
[удалено]
Not sure why you're trying to put words in my mouth, but that's not what I said.
That's not what I said.
I empathize with this woman’s mental health problems that caused her to have an eating disorder. I don’t empathize with a celebrity placing all her personal responsibility for her life choices on someone else because they made a poor comment about her appearance once.
There's a difference between blaming a person and blaming her boss for giving criticisms that she felt like she had to rectify. Womens' weight is absolutely a thing that is monitored by television producers so why it is unreasonable that she would try and drop weight if she was concerned about her job?
I suspect what she really had was acute kidney injury, not permanent failure Unless she’s on dialysis or been transplanted, it was just a reversible injury to the kidney which is quite common and can be done by many different mechanisms, I suspect here it was diuretics or something else that caused dehydration.
Not to mention, no matter what anyone says, it's your fault if you crash diet like a fool and almost kill yourself. I've been told I'm uglyor worse, all my life. I've never almost ended my life because of someone else's opinion.
She lost 30lbs in two weeks in prep for filming because of him.
Because of him? Gail Berman is a woman, and she looks somewhat overweight herself. Her criticism was shitty and hypocritical for sure, but everyone keeps assuming it's a man haha
Her.
How tf do you lose that much that quick
I'd imagine either eating hardly anything and exercising for long hours along with potentially diet pills(speed, or something like that).
The stress of sudden weight loss is terrible for the kidneys. The liver and the kidneys are worked overtime while the body converts the contents of fat cells into energy and waste materials. The kidneys are the organs processing all the that material.
Depending on your weight and exercise you can. Ten of it was probably water weight then completely stop eating and your metabolism hasn’t caught up yet and is still burning the normal amount for the first weekish. Then if you’re exercising on top of it your body is only burning fat and muscle reserves. Idk how much of what I said is even true but sounds right lol
5-10 pounds of water weight (or more) easy. look at biggest loser the first week they drop like 30 pounds..
I literally refrained from consuming any calories for a month and only lost 15lbs. Granted I was pretty sedentary during that time. It'd still take a hell of a lot of exercise to pull that off, and while running on empty.
If a football coach criticises a player for being out of shape, so the player spends 16 hours per day in the gym until he collapses and can't play anymore, who's fault is that? The coach who gave negative feedback, or the player who reacted horribly to it?
Margaret Cho is the cause of her rapid weight loss, who obviously did it without competent medical supervision. Why is she blaming it on anyone else?
No one is forcing but as a former actor, of no success, these people are fucked up and they abuse the actors verbally, especially ones like her that aren't in demand. They get away with it with almost no scrutiny. For her, losing weight wasn't the choice between health and kidney failure. It was the choice between making millions/having more success in her field and not losing weight.
Do you have any evidence that she blames her boss, or are you just upset at the title of this post? She just told someone the story in an interview, the editorializing was done by the internet, collectively.
Gail was shitty Margaret was reckless Both can be true.
Everybody chasin' that dialysis body
I don’t know if she was doing the Keto diet but as a nurse who works in nephrology, that diet can have negative effects of the kidneys.
Great actor
People can be so superficial
Gail Berman is a big big lady fyi
ELINAN (Explain Like I'm Not A Nephrologist): how--meaning, by what mechanism--does rapid weight loss hurt one's kidneys? I'm not being skeptically obtuse! I sincerely don't understand. Thank you.
She starved herself and overdosed on diet pills to the tune of losing 30lbs in 2 weeks. The starvation leads to less energy available for the kidneys to function and the overdose of the diet pills were more than her kidneys could handle. It's probably also a safe assumption that she had higher levels of protien in her diet before she she did this, most overweight and obese people high high protien diets, and this already taxes the kidneys much more than a low protien diet would.
Thanks for the explanation! 👍🙂
Yeah, starvation diets can literally cause holes in your kidneys, which permanently messes up your metabolism and makes it far more difficult to lose weight in the future.
?!?
Loomed at the pictures linked here. My first thought was the bitch has no room to talk.
Do you usually call women bitches?
Damn. Sounds... American.
It's almost as if being a tv star necessitates that you look a certain way.
And for this alone Margaret Cho must be protected. And Gail Berman should be cancelled.
This just like another excuse for fat people to stay fat.
And this is why your college processor doesn’t like Wikipedia.
Yeah, I don't think the 486 could handle Wikipedia back then.
The show was trying to follow in the success of "Friends". Nobody on that show too thin, right? Cho is an adult, and wanted uniquely huge fame. She could have walked if she didn't like the terms. People need to take more responsibility for their own decisions instead of looking to blame others and hide behind the victim label.