It's a sticky situation and one I think the media will try and twist to suite their ends. But I think more stories like this should be written as the worlds weight is coming more under the spotlight and weight issues and related health topics become more of an issue. I was very overweight at one point and through a lot of the description of what goes on in this story is what I did.
I would be inclined to agree with you were this not an overwhelmingly notable case of good ol' hypocrisy and sexism. Why didn't the author, who is 1) Male and 2) Morbidly obese, do these: 1) Write about a young boy's experience dealing with weight problems--he'd know more about that, I'm sure, than he would about a female perspective, and 2) Take his own advice and go on a diet before writing a book about going on a diet. He's neither a dietitian nor a pediatrician, so why is he meddling in children's diet issues? Unprofessional interference could be potentially dangerous, there's no doubt about that.
More importantly, though, is the horrible blunder of the book's title. Why not call it, "Maggie Makes Healthy Choices", or something along those lines, or else make it a generic book where multiple children of both genders, all races, etc. make healthy choices and shun junk food? I doubt anyone would argue that's a bad thing to write about.
I guess the most disturbing thing in this entire story is the fact that the message the book seems to be sending is more about social acceptance and less about the importance of being healthy. Let us look at some of the known background info. this book features:
1) The catalyst for Maggie's diet is to cease the taunting she receives at school for being overweight.
2) From the cover image, Maggie's entire motivation for "going on a diet" is to fit into a tiny dress--i.e. superficial ambitions, not health-related benefits.
3) People pay attention to Maggie only
after she becomes "normal," at which point boys start speaking decently to her, and she becomes popular. The message this sends is dangerous--it is one where social acceptance and popularity are the reasons behind dieting, and health is entirely cut out of the picture. Is that the kind of message you want impressionable young children (4 to 8 year olds were the target audience of this "work", according to printed sources) to receive? Pray tell, why should 4-8 year old kids care about being popular or attracting boys' attention?
Moreover, diets are unhealthy for young children. I wouldn't even put 14 year old Maggie on a diet. Do you know what a diet is? I do. I eat a
maximum of 1,200 calories every day, and exercise for at least 30 minutes (usually 2 hours, but now that school is in session, I have to cut it back to 30-60 mins). However, I'm almost 20 years old. I'm not going to grow any more than I already have, so this is not exactly dangerous for me. For a growing boy/girl, however, undergoing such restrictions could have dangerous physical and mental consequences.
Instead of "dieting" to conform to a certain image, the vocabulary used should be related to healthy eating and life choices.
I know I'm no one to preach about making healthy choices (if you knew what I do, you'd cringe), but that's why I'm not writing books for 4 year olds to read.
