Add Pounds, Remove Salary
People are just committed to refusing to admit that looks are important; just witness the rage of some commenters on the post I did about the large ladies in the Dove ads. (The "it's sad" quote is mine; Ysabella's response follows directly below it):
"It's sad, too, because being a heavy women diminishes your opportunities in jobs, life, and love."Dang me! I'd better give back the dreamy and loving husband, the six-figure salary, the year on the Cote d'Azur, the two years in Holland, the glassblowing skill, and the three triathlon finisher's medals. I'd better hurry up and stop achieving, because I'm an enormous US size 20.
I'd better drop the triathlon training, since it doesn't seem to make me skinny. I'll call around to some surgeons instead, before my life tanks - since I'm obviously not worthy of it. Meanwhile, I'd better hide at home, lest I offend the sensitive eyes of the angelic, wonderful, slim humans.
I agree, it surely is sad...that a fellow woman like yourself has to stick her foot on my neck.
My response, in part?
Sure, there are exceptions -- but to be overweight tends to diminish a woman's opportunities.
Evolutionary psychologists data say looks (i.e., adhering best one can [within reason, I'd add] to standards of beauty) are of surpreme importance, especially for women. Look up the work of David Buss, Todd Shackelford, Devendra Singh, Nancy Etcoff, and others for more information. And look at the results of this recent study out of NYU, included in a LA Times article by Daniel Costello about the costs of obesity:
While both men and women who are severely obese make less money at work than people of normal weight, women suffer a bigger wage penalty. This summer, researchers at New York University found that an increase of 10% in a woman's body mass decreased her income by 6%. The study also found that overweight women are less likely to be college graduates and more likely to work in less-skilled industries."There's no single smoking gun to explain it," said economist Roland Sturm of Rand Corp. in Santa Monica. "But it's clear that for obese people, especially the morbidly obese, their weight can affect how well they do financially."
The sad thing is, people don't really know how to eat in America. Starving oneself (yoyo dieting) actually puts on pounds. I highly recommend the book The Fat Fallacy, by neurophysiologist Will Clower, about how the French manage to bury their faces in plates of foie gras and not gain weight...and, despite all their smoking, have a third of the heart disease Americans do. Another very smart book is Diets Don't Work, by Bob Schwartz. You also might want to check out the discussion here, at Jack&Hill, where Hillary Johnson has posted on the topic. I'll post about her new blog very soon, but I want to do it justice, so mum's the word for now!
> People are just committed to refusing to admit
> that looks are important...
Did anyone say anything like that?
You have this fascination with saying "I'm sorry, but it's all in the data... I can't help you. Besides, movie stars are cute!"
You overstate the value of reasoned approach to a fundamentally insane realm of human life.
Crid at August 2, 2005 6:24 AM
Also, read some SJ Gould on diversity
Crid at August 2, 2005 6:27 AM
Gee, you don't think her tone reflects a bit of defensiveness on her part, do you? Our culture of faux outrage over fairly innocuous comments is really getting out of hand, witness the volumes of hate mail Roeper has received over his one column on the subject.
First Larry Summers gets into trouble by stating a fact proven in research, now you get flak for doing the same thing. I guess it really comes down to whomever shouts loudest these days.
Dmac at August 2, 2005 8:03 AM
I don't read Amy as attacking or being insensitive. She is stating the data. (Sort of reminds me of the book, "He's just not that into you.") While the data speaks, yes humans do have the capability of looking beyond that, we aren't animals. But acknowledging these preferences are important if they lead us to healthy change (I'm talking about weight, not getting plastic surgery to change your facial features. By the way, if you haven't already, check out www.goodplasticsurgery.com. I think Giselle is absolutely beautiful. But I think she was even more attractive with her original nose!) Ysabella sounds like she has a fabulous sense of confidence and self-motivation; that she is able to push past first impression stereotypes and not let anything hold her back from experiencing life to the fullest. Bravo to her! But for many women (and men), even those whose physical dimensions may more closely resemble idealized standard, their inner self holds them back in adversity. And for most of us, changing the things we can is so important, for our physical and emotional health.
I gained 50 lbs while pregnant with my daughter. My OB had warned me and encouraged me to try not to gain much more than 30-35 lbs. I didn't listen and it took me quite a while to get back to healthier eating and exercise post partum. (Great book recommendations, Amy, thanks) So it has been a struggle to get myself back in shape. Let me tell you, that extra weight played havoc on my system...my joints ached, I felt sluggish, my stomach felt "yucky", not to mention the affect it had on my athletic ability and self confidence. I went from being able to walk one mile in 10-11 minutes to one mile in 15-16 minutes. Extra weight affected my whole body tremendously!
The other thing I noticed, people in public treated me differently after that weight gain. I observed that I no longer received glances from men, from women, people seemed not to see me anymore (at least compared with before). There really was a difference! Of course, my girlfriends and my husband still loved me and told me I was beautiful. But I'm talking about first impressions with strangers.
One more story and then I'll stop.
A good friend of mine from work has a short, "stocky" build, if you will. I figured she was just naturally heavier. Well guess what happened when she began exercising and improving her diet? She began to trim down and became a much smaller (and healthier) version of herself. Originally claiming her short stature, broad shoulders, thick waist and trunk was because of her "hearty Russian/Hungarian" heritage, she was thrilled when the "inner gymnast" in her came out! It wasn't a natural state for her body to be fat after all. (Note: I'm not saying that the same is for everyone, I am only speaking from my life experiences.)
Claire at August 2, 2005 8:04 AM
Claire -
Point of clarification here: I was referring to the reader who was responding to Amy's comments, not the original post that Amy wrote.
Dmac at August 2, 2005 8:50 AM
I see a certain fixation on weight, Amy, and I wonder if it stems from your recent (albeit small) weight loss. For a refreshing change of pace, why not investigate bias against hair color or a person’s lack of formal education? These are issues just as pressing and deserve some of your attention.
Some of the interesting nuggets I have discovered (the APA citations are for Crid—all are from peer-reviewed publications):
-Employers inadvertently hire and promote blonde haired persons over brunette, black, gray and red haired employees (in that order).
Fein, S., and Spencer, S. (1997). Prejudice as self-image maintenance: Affirming the self through derogating others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), 31-44.
Fink, B. (2001). Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness in relation to skin texture. Journal of Comparative Anatomy,115 (1), 92-99.
-As a bachelor’s degree is the “new” high school diploma, many employers look at a master’s degree as the minimum amount of education when they are looking to hire in the fields of business, education and communications.
Simmonds, M. (2002). Professional education and training for the next decade. Journal of Pharmacy Education,1(3).
-Despite strides, employers look at unmarried females over the age of 40 to be unsuccessful in maintaining relationships and as interpersonal failures.
Toufexis, A. (1996). When the ring doesn’t fit. Psychology Today, 23(10).
Vijayanthimala, K.; Bharati Kumari, K. (1997).Women with multiple roles: perception of psychological factors and marital satisfaction. The Journal of Family Welfare, 43(3), 54-60.
Candace K at August 2, 2005 9:17 AM
Okay, "Psychology Today" isn't peer=reviewed. Oops!
candace K at August 2, 2005 9:19 AM
Oh, I know Dmac...I posted my about the same time as yours, so I didn't see your comment until mine posted!
Claire at August 2, 2005 9:37 AM
Dmac: Amy's a big girl who readily slaps back when she feels like it.
Crid at August 2, 2005 10:21 AM
" For a refreshing change of pace, why not investigate bias against hair color or a person’s lack of formal education? These are issues just as pressing and deserve some of your attention."
Uninteresting to me. If you're uneducated, get educated. More opportunities will open up to you. If you feel you'll do better with blonde hair, dye your hair.
To suggest that I somehow hate fat people because I once lost a few pounds (all I did was quit dieting -- I've always been athletic -- and start eating...but eating healthily)...is silly. I write about short men not having opportunities, etc. What interests me is in the "fat acceptance" rather than the acceptance of the truth. Sure, many men like rounder women than the magazine (stick figure, 12yr-old model) ideal. But if you go to Dulles airport tomorrow. you'll want to cry for a lot of the women there.
Psych Today, now that Kaja Perina, who's become a friend, is editing it, is a good magazine.
Amy Alkon at August 2, 2005 11:26 AM
I noticed that red - haired people were last on that list for employer preferences. I guess that means I'm screwed for life. But my wife will be OK (she dyes her hair semi - blonde).
Interesting stuff - I'd never heard of that information before.
Dmac at August 2, 2005 2:06 PM
> But if you go to Dulles airport tomorrow
> you'll want to cry...
"Why do you think they're called 'the masses'?"
- C. Hitchens, 1998
Crid at August 2, 2005 2:14 PM
What about my two-year-old daughter? She's a strawberry blonde. Would she be classified as a redhead or as a blonde?
And my auburn hair, am I classified as a redhead or a brunette?
Claire at August 2, 2005 2:31 PM
I think your daughter would be called a two - fer; she gets the best of both worlds.
Dmac at August 2, 2005 2:38 PM
I wrote a long comment on this topic but it was denied because of questionable content. I wonder, did your blog know that I was disagreeing with you!?
Lynley at August 2, 2005 4:01 PM
Cute. Sorry, blame the spammers. I was denied the permission myself to put up a word that starts with A and has three W's after it. There's some word in your post that's kicking in the filters on MTBlacklist. I have to have that software. I was getting HUNDREDS of comments spam a day - a thousand on some days. The worst was when I had a rush magazine piece to do and I was on the old software where it only listed five comments you could delete at a time. I cried.
Amy Alkon at August 2, 2005 5:07 PM
PS Try again and try to figure out the word. Probably something to do with card games or male enhancement drugs.
Amy Alkon at August 2, 2005 5:08 PM
Well I said size twice and plastic surgery once, but I tried changing those and and it still wouldn't work. And if this comment gets posted then those definitely weren't the problem (size)! I don't know enough about what it filters to guess what else it could be. Anyway, I can sympathize; freedom from spam certainly outranks my questionable insight here . . . thanks for trying to help though!
Lynley at August 2, 2005 7:33 PM
Amy, thanks for blogging my snarky response and all, but I don't think I quite understand what you're getting at with this entry. Is it me who is supposed to admit something?
I feel like you see me as a specimen of something bad, or a symptom of some larger illness in our society, or something negative. I am perfectly aware of my disadvantages; nevertheless, I have a good self-image, and a determination to enjoy life. I'm not whining and I'm not complacent. I think I'm a good example.
You can keep pointing me to the back of the bus, but I'm not going there.
Ysabella at August 2, 2005 8:24 PM
Now why get on Amy's case because she posts the data? As cliche as it sounds, that's simply "killing the messenger." Amy didn't do the research, and presumably didn't hire others to do it. She found it, read it, understood it, agreed with it, and shared it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it's something most of us are guilty of. So, let's crucify her for it.
So, Amy, would you like to be executed like Jesus? Or St. Peter (upside down)? Or perhaps you'd prefer St. Andrew's method (on an X shaped cross)?
Patrick the cynic at August 3, 2005 8:28 AM
Speaking purely as a horny guy with very good taste in pussy (I got to know Amy's writing in the pages of Hustler - loved your piece on Aura Bogado and Diana Russell - loved Holly's sexy round ass on page 52 even more) I've got to tell you... four of those chicks in the Dove ad are 100% stroke-worthy exactly as they are. The other two might be if they dropped the panties. They're certainly hotter than that chick in the funky hat and pink boa I saw posted somewhere in this blog. If I had to choose between fucking Skelator or fucking Jabba the Hutt, I'll look for Jabba's hole instantly.
Ultimo Franco at August 3, 2005 11:17 AM
Hey, who let the troll in here?
Dmac at August 3, 2005 11:40 AM
Amy is a big girl, Dmac. She doesn't need you leaping to her e-rescue every time someone disagrees with her.
I prefer sinking into a soft, round ass. You prefer cutting your hands on some chick's exposed hip bones. I prefer a nice pair of big round tits slapping me in the face. You prefer counting a woman's vertebra. Different strokes, my man.
Ultimo Franco at August 3, 2005 12:28 PM
I'm well aware that she doesn't need any faux chivalry from me, but you seem to have confused this site with something else - whatever that "else" is, one can only guess.
Dmac at August 3, 2005 12:48 PM
How did I confuse anything? Is there a different writer named Amy Alkon that I've been reading in Hustler? Whoever it is, her piece on how to tell when your lady is lying to you was terrific. And the girl-on-girl shots on page 56 of that issue were quite stunning. Me likey!
Anywho... I love the way this site's Amy keeps pointing out that her comments are all based on "data". Surely data couldn't be skewed or misleading. It's data, after all! It's an irrefutable source of universal truth! That's why they call it data.
There haven't been any moronic opinions throughout history that were justified by scientific or social data but which we see today as unjustifiable, have there? Surely not!
UUltimo Franco at August 3, 2005 1:26 PM
Leave a comment