Fat/Size Acceptance

I think it's worth making the thread partly about diet because the weight of both genders can be considered a feminist issue. It is the woman's 'choices' that get the blame if there is a weight problem with any member of the family - "What is she feeding him/the kids?" etc. It is still assumed to be the woman who shops, prepares and cooks food for the family.

I wonder if one of the reasons you see 'healthy-weight' men partnered with 'over-weight' women is because traditionally women have always sacrificed their own dietary needs for the welfare of their men and children. In modern terms could this translate to feeding a healthy diet to DH and DC while eating the less healthy option herself? Also, a woman may eat smaller, healthy portions to save money/keep fit but then be hungry later so she ends up eating less healthy foods as snacks. Eating leftovers because of abhorring waste is another reason women - as primary caregivers - tend to have for putting on weight. A lot of men don't have to see food they've spent money on and time preparing go to waste.

Also, I think a number of studies have shown a pretty strong link between diet products and eventual weight gain (either because fat is substituted for sugar or because the fat/sugar substitutes have addictive qualities).

x-post :)

Insomnia!

I was threatened with hospitalisation at 50kg, but am taller and sturdier than Ms Average. A 167cm woman of 50kg is 'seriously underweight' at a BMI of 17.93, according to the NHS. At 60kg, she's 'healthy' at 21.51 BMI.
The sample was so large, the women must have come out at average height. (If the high earners had all turned out to be short, they would have said so!)
That means women between seriously underweight and the low end of healthy earn a lot more than women of middle healthy to overweight size.
I find it quite sinister.

To weigh 50kgs you'd have to be pretty short for it to be a healthy weight. I was 5'2" when I was 12 so that gave me a BMI of 20. I thought tall women tended to be richer? Or rich women tended to be taller? What's the relationship with height?

Meaning that a female employee weighing 50 kilograms would get paid substantially more than someone weighing 60 kilograms

I weighed 50kgs when I was about 12. I weighed 60kgs when I was 26 and got paid considerably more than for my paper round.

An element of trophy wifism, maybe, Tilly?

I'm saying that both normal body weight and high earning potential are caused by a third factor, coming from an affluent background in the first place. - OK, Bride, I didn't clock that and can agree with it. To an extent. But I believe prejudice is still at the root - even from the successful woman's early childhood, when she was fed less than her brother.

Just did a very quick search for some figures - didn't find the ones I was looking for, but thought this interesting:-

Skinny women got paid substantially higher salaries than heavier women, yet this relationship was much less pronounced at the higher ends of the scale. Meaning that a female employee weighing 50 kilograms would get paid substantially more than someone weighing 60 kilograms, but the difference between 70 and 80 was much less severe. That?s probably because ? as Dan and Tim put it ? ?the social preferences for a feminine body have already been violated?; you?re either skinny or not, but once you?re over the (rather extreme) threshold, we don?t care much anymore about the number on your scale.

Yet, this relationship looked very different for men. In contrast to the women in the sample, men of moderate weight would get paid substantially more than skinny men. But such a man of average weight would also get paid quite a bit more than an obese person. Hence, being skinny for a woman would mean more dosh, but for men it would mean less money ? all in the order of magnitude of $10,000-15,000 per year.

bsr.london.edu/blog/post-31/index.html

This is not a Daily Mail dipstick poll. The study looked at weight and income data on 11,253 German employees and, in another study, on 12,686 American workers; the latter who were measured no less than 15 times over a period of 25 years, to also see how change in weight was related to changes in income.

but the intresting bit for me (& i WILL hunt down the background to the radio program but it might take a few days) is that rich men are as fat as poor men. only for women does weight decrease with wealth.

so it is not about affording fruit and veg....

`GB no, same price.

I would love to see half portions, 3/4 portions widely available for all dishes, for children and those who find it hard not to clear their plates irrespective of appetite.

GB

No, I'm not. You're seeing a correlation between earnings and body weight and making it cause and effect whereby you are thin and therefore you get to be a trader at Goldmans, whereas I'm saying that both normal body weight and high earning potential are caused by a third factor, coming from an affluent background in the first place.

I'm not denying that there isn't pressure on all women to conform to a certain body type. That is very clear. However, in terms of whether it directly affects earnings, I'm far from convinced.

Definitely agree it's easier to eat healthily and enjoyably if you have money. Fruit and veg cost me a fortune - would be much cheaper to buy processed foods.

Also, BMI is a load of rubbish. I am mostly a fit active person - I walk the dog twice a day, run, and cycle/swim. However, I have periods where I drop the running and gain 'fat' as a result. I go up a clothes size. But my weight (and consequently my BMI) stays the same because the muscle tone is being lost to fat which takes up more room but is lighter.

I thought BMI could only be used as one tool among many now, precisely because it doesn't take into account build and exercise level adequately. Obviously someone who weighs 22 stone is going to have a problem and an obese BMT is just confirming the obvious, but someone who is borderline should have their general health and lifestyle factored in. It's a bit like the child growth percentile charts. They work for 'most' people and 'average' people, but that's no help if you don't fall in that category - and a surprising number don't.

:) ColdTruth.

TheBride - What you are seeing is the benefits of being able to eat sashimi for lunch and afford a PT a couple of times a week. - yes, you are, but you're also seeing evidence that women know they must be slim to succeed. Which is weird, imo.

Ok- I should say that when I said "thin" I meant "normal weight" - i.e. not underweight, but without a lot of surplus fat (let's use BMI20-25 as an approximation)

When you look at high earning women in the UK, they tend to fall into this category rather than super-skinny IME (in the City). You see very few women who are model/ HW actress size. What you are seeing is the benefits of being able to eat sashimi for lunch and afford a PT a couple of times a week.

I know garlic I was just messing around.

You don't have to eat tiny amounts, you can eat a healthy diet (depending on the persons size) but just make sure to do some form of exercise regularly. It's much healthier to lose weight by exercising and eating normally than going on a crash diet.

You could fill it with lentils and tinned fish. But why would you want to lose weight?

This isn't a diet thread, it's a feminist thread about sizeism ...

By gender, ColdTruth, ffs.

TheBride, I disagree. Being thin isn't the outcome of a healthy diet, it's the outcome of a restricted diet. The healthy/expensive option gives you a better range of micronutrients (so is healthier) but basic calorie needs, protein, major vitamins and fibre are supplied by any normal Western diet.

There's a big difference between malnutition and starvation. Starvation is what happens when you have insufficient calories (you can die from it.) Malnutrition - lack of essential micronutrients - doesn't kill you, but leaves you vulnerable to disease. Neither is a problem in the industrially developed world.

Slebs are often saying the worst thing about having to be 'beautiful' all the time is being permanently hungry. Hunger is known to be the main reason why so many models are bad-tempered.

In summary, then, we think more highly of people - especially women - and reward them financially for keeping themselves in a state of semi-starvation. Nice.

Aren't they controlling all their customers diets?

I meant to ask, Sal, did they charge less for the "ladies' portions"? Or offer a small-plate option to all diners? Thought not ...! It's straightforward discrimination, then, and I'd have threatened the patronising twunts with legal action.

Not to mention: how DARE they try to control their female customers' diets??!

That's timely SAF, my dsis said the same thing to me yesterday - new boyfriend, new jeans size. She has gone on another bloody fad diet now.. Somebody is making money

It will be interesting to see the gender difference as with weight and income, it's hard to prove cause rather than correlation

i.e Do fat people earn less because they're fat OR Do people from more affluent backgrounds tend to be thinner (due to access to healthy food/ better education etc)?

I suspect it's largely the latter.