The New York Times reports that social scientists have once more demonstrated the obvious: ((Which is a very useful think for social scientists to do, in my opinion.))
Fat Bias Worse For Women
Based on body mass index, which is a measure of body fat based on height and weight, a normal weight is in the range of 18.5 to 24.9. The study found that women begin to experience noticeable weight bias — such as problems at work or difficulty in personal relationships — when they reach a body mass index, or B.M.I., of 27. For a 5-foot-5-inch woman, that means discrimination starts once she reaches a weight of 162 pounds — or about 13 pounds more than her highest healthy weight, based on B.M.I. charts.
But the researchers found that men can bulk up far more without experiencing discrimination. Weight bias against men becomes noticeable when a man reaches a B.M.I. of 35 or higher. A 5-foot-9-inch man has a B.M.I. of 35 if he weighs 237 pounds — or 68 pounds above his highest healthy weight.
The study also revealed that women are twice as likely as men to report weight discrimination and that weight-related workplace bias and interpersonal mistreatment due to obesity are common. The researchers found that weight discrimination is more prevalent than discrimination based on sexual orientation, nationality or ethnicity, physical disability and religious beliefs.
“However, despite its high prevalence, it continues to remain socially acceptable,” said co-author Tatiana Andreyava.
“Despite its high prevalence, it continues to remain socially acceptable”? Uh-huh. Doesn’t it seem more likely that because of its social acceptability, it remains highly prevalent?
Especially since what they’re really measuring is perceived discrimination and bias. All those other forms of discrimination are less socially acceptable to state openly than weight bias; they are therefore more likely to be kept secret, and less likely to be noticed as discrimination. So this study doesn’t necessarily show that discrimination based on “sexual orientation, nationality or ethnicity, physical disability and religious beliefs” necessarily happens any less often than weight-related discrimination; it may be that these other discriminations happen just as frequently, but are more frequently kept secret, and so less likely to be perceived as discrimination.
“The New York Times reports that social scientists have once more demonstrated the obvious:1”
Yep. Confirms my experience of always being fat, even when I was “a 5-foot-5-inch woman, that means discrimination starts once she reaches a weight of 162 pounds — or about 13 pounds more than her highest healthy weight, based on B.M.I. charts.”
The operative word here is HEALTHY. When I weighed 162 pounds I was suffering from a hormonal condition that mimicked menopause (when I was 23 years old). When the condition got better SUPRISE! I started gaining weight again. Thank G-d. As frustrating as it is to shop for decent clothing (see “No, being fat isn’t the same…” posts) I’d never trade being thin for being healthy.
As for the “about 13 pounds more than her highest healthy weight”, although I maybe didn’t look fat to anyone else I still felt fat at that weight, although certainly a lot less so. My parents (both lifelong yo-yoers) were terrified of weight discrimination, blamed it completely on themselves, and passed it to me completely unexamined.
And yes, I agree with the estimates about where weight discrimination starts effecting men, although I’m looking at from the outside. But I suspect that the range of size for men is probably shrinking. I’d like to hear what fat men think about this.
Meanwhile, I think the fear of fat discrimination causes more illness in fat people than all the other “scientifically verifiable” causes combined.
Whoo. O-kay. I’m getting off the soap box now and letting you all go at it. Thanks.
You can see this in action through the tabloids at the check out aisle in the grocery store. They are constantly policing celebrity women’s weight – “too skinny!” “too fat!” I’m no fan of Britney Spears, but I was appalled last year when her doped up stripper dance at the MTV Awards last year generated a slew of anti-fat jokes, headlines and tabloid coverage. I was like, “But she just had TWO KIDS!” Plus the fact that she actually looked like a healthy woman. I mean, other than the “doped up” part. :-P
Thank you for your foot note.
As an aspiring social scientist, it drives me up the wall when people’s reaction to studies about things that people assume to be true is, roughly, “no shit” frequently followed by “why did that get funding?!” No. Not “no shit.” Conversely, don’t vehemently deny the results of a study just because you don’t agree with them. *sigh* Good social science includes examining ones’ self (researcher) to look for biases.
done with the rant.
Anyway, this kind of make me wonder about sex differences of self-perceived ‘fatness’.
I mean, I’m 5 6, and am a size 14 (which means I’m 160+ lbs). From years of observing my own fluctuations, I consider a 10-12 to be my ‘healthy’ weight. Anything below that takes conscious effort, like extensive dieting/exercise. When I am not getting out or am eating lots of junk food my size moves up and I’ve noticed a decreased ability to do physical things. So, right now, I consider myself ‘unhealthy’ because most of my time is spent doing research/homework, but I don’t consider myself ‘fat’ by any means.
My boyfriend, however, considers himself fat. He’s not skinny by any means, but he’s also generally a larger overall–wide shoulders and all that. He is very very effected by media messages about the proper weight for men. I’ve tried to explain to him that it’s more socially acceptable for him to bigger, and that most people probably wouldn’t consider him fat. Nonetheless, he’s very self-conscious about it.
Weight, you mean guys don’t get fat-discrimination until they’re heavily overweight, while women get shat upon when they’re only moderately overweight?
Quick, Captain Obvious, to the RomeroCopter!!
I wonder how much is driven by clothing fashion?
Unless you buy clothes for unusually skinny people, men’s clothes are fairly loose. i can fluctuate 10% weight up or down and it still won’t be very obvious if I’m wearing my typical guy outfit; it mostly shows in my neck. i wear the same jacket sizes that i wore when i was 20+ pounds lighter and i could probably gain another 15 before I’d need new clothes. Does my waist go in, go straight, or bulge out? You can hardly tell.
Formal women’s wear, however, tends to be tighter cut. So do most other clothes for women. You can easily see waist, torso shape, etc. Is that more of a result, or more of a cause?
In my early-20s, I was once called “fat” by some asshole when I had dieted myself down to 109 lbs, soaking wet.
That’s when I finally figured out it was just a misogynist insult, not really connected to reality.
“Fat” was just one of the worst things he could think of.
Formal women’s wear, however, tends to be tighter cut. So do most other clothes for women. You can easily see waist, torso shape, etc. Is that more of a result, or more of a cause?
Not just formal women’s wear, but ALL women’s wear tends to be tighter cut. There’s a lot of pressure on young women, especially, but older ones too, to wear tight clothing. Young American men definitely get a pass because of the baggy style issue, but also police each other if their clothing is too “tight.” I had a male student from Sweden a few years ago; in Sweden, it was totally cool for men to wear tight jeans and tight Ts; not so in the US. He came to study here in the heartland and got called a faggot for wearing tight clothes. This happened to him more than once in a few months.
Meanwhile, I went to college in the ’80s and could wear big sweaters; fashions have gotten smaller and smaller, even as bodies have gotten bigger. I’m glad that women with curvy figures feel empowered enough to wear the tight clothes and essentially say “I’m big and I’m hot.” That rocks. However, I think many women are made miserable by this fashion trend.
There was an episode of Star Trek where they go to a planet run by women and the men all had to wear these tight pants that really emphasized their buttocks, for the women’s pleasure. Basically, that’s where we are: the world is increasingly sexualized for women, and their bodies are increasingly surveyed, judged… policed.
Thanks on behalf of the Insitute of the Totally Obvious.
Sorry, but I think a lot of it has to do with how serious of an insult you feel “fat” is or how obsessed you are with your weight. I am 270+ and have never had anyone belittle me for it. I have an uncle who’s nickname has been Fat since he was a boy…very respected individual. Of course neither one of us obsess over our belt size. If you delude yourself into thinking you ARENT overweight…you will be offended more easily. If you constantly obsess about your weight, you will see every comment you hear as an insult of your weight.
Not to spam a pile of messages here but the difference between men and women could have a lot to do with the value society places on aspects of the individual. Women use looks to attract a mate. Men use means…success, wealth, athletisism. That means society as a whole values/notices a woman’s looks more than it does a mans. The flipside of the ugly/fat thing would be something like…how often have you heard a woman called “a bum”.
BASTA, you have been banned repeatedly. Go away. –Mandolin
Women use looks to attract a mate. Men use means…success, wealth, athletisism. That means society as a whole values/notices a woman’s looks more than it does a mans.
I would flip the causal arrow 180 degrees.
I have been overweight most of my adult life. i know it affects me at my job by how people precieve me (like lazy, not ambitious enough, that I stink because that I so not shower ofter enough (NOT), and such) makes me wonder if they realize that there may be other causes that may be attributed to why I am that way. and yes i would have to agree that the way the world sees people sees people is on the skinny side, not all people are built that way nor care to starve themselves that way.
BASTA! – why would you correct for the distribution of BMI in the population? Not that the BMI is a great measure of fitness or anything, but the study compared the normative measures of “healthy”, “overweight,” and “obese” for each sex. It’s already apples to apples.
Here’s the 2004 data from the CDC. They claim 71% of men and 61% of women are “overweight,” and 30% of men and 34% of women are “obese.” I’m not sure why that would matter.
Pingback: Weekenders 1 « Still Truckin’
> He came to study here in the heartland and got called a faggot for wearing
> tight clothes. This happened to him more than once in a few months.
This is something many European males can tell you. Tight jeans, swimming
trunks, messenger bags… those have have gotten me in quite a few fights.
I have to admit that I have stopped wearing any of the above.
This whole discussion is stupid. Short men face greater discrimination than
short women. Weak men face greater discrimination than weak women. Lazy
men face greater discrimination than lazy women. Ugly women face greater
discrimination than ugly men. If you are still not getting it:
Being fat is associated with being lazy and being ugly. In our society women
are valued more for their looks and men more for their labor. In our society,
being overweight affects the perception of being attracting earlier than it
affects the perception of being hard working.
It may be sad, it may be unfair, but it sure as Hell is easy to explain.
lazy men are discriminated against more than lazy women, and ugly women are discriminated against more than ugly men, does it balance itself out, meaning that fat people should be discriminated against equally? Unless the discrimination of ugly women, is greater than the discrimination of ugly men.
Really, why? I mean wouldn’t the capacity to associate the laziness and ugliness work at the same time? Or are you saying that the part of the brain that conceptualises laziness works more slowly than the part that recognises attractiveness.
Either way this is interesting touching as it does on the way the brain functions and the various interplays between gender and discrimination. It could be stupid, if you are talking nonsense.
“In my early-20s, I was once called “fat” by some asshole when I had dieted myself down to 109 lbs, soaking wet.
That’s when I finally figured out it was just a misogynist insult, not really connected to reality.
“Fat” was just one of the worst things he could think of.”
I’ve been called fat too, once, by a kid on a schoolbus (yelled at me). I was wearing a wintercoat, coat isn’t particularly tight and has duvet and feathers to keep warm. I’m skinny and can’t gain weight, even when I try, my low appetite doesn’t help. I’m 5’6″ and about 105 lbs, so I mostly laughed it up to myself. I mean, some people have tried to diagnose me with anorexia nervosa (wrongfully, but because of my weight/size) and I’d be fat?
Conversely, I’ve been called skinny a lot. Especially when my waist was visible in some way, but even without. I got the effect of that much more when perceived as male than when perceived as female. Both men and women commented, ages varying widely (family, co-workers, classmates, acquaintances). It seems my being skinny is considered much more normal/desirable now, although the only thing that changed is people’s perception of me.
> lazy men are discriminated against more than lazy women, and ugly
> women are discriminated against more than ugly men, does it balance
> itself out, meaning that fat people should be discriminated against
> equally? Unless the discrimination of ugly women, is greater than
> the discrimination of ugly men.
You either made some typos there, or I there’s something wrong with my comprehension. In any case, it does not balance out. If you are hiring male cooks and female waitresses, it goes one way, if you are hiring male clothes horses and female seamstresses, it goes the other way. Trophy wife vs meal ticket, etc…
> Really, why? I mean wouldn’t the capacity to associate the laziness
> and ugliness work at the same time? Or are you saying that the part
> of the brain that conceptualises laziness works more slowly than the
> part that recognises attractiveness.
There is no need to go look for answers that far. Example:
Your dirt bike has a certain amount of mud stuck onto it. You do not need much mud to start thinking “This bike’s dirty, it would look better washed”. Add mud, and you could start thinking “There’s so much mud packed into this bike that it is affecting the balance and the power to weight ratio, it would run better cleaned up”. Add enough mud, and you think “There is no way this bike will run with the exhaust pipe caked like this. I need to clean it”.
In the same way, some people will consider a woman less attractive because of a few extra pounds. Fewer people will consider a man incapable of doing his job because of less than twenty or thirty extra pounds… in most cases. If I had five extra pounds at the time of my next kickboxing match, my chances of winning would go down a lot (different weight class) If I was twenty five pounds overweight, hoping for a win would be stupid.
Yep I’ve made some errors, I wanted to say ‘doesn’t it balance itself out?’ and ‘ unless the discrimination against ugly women is greater than that of lazy men’ OK?
As for your dirty bike, which seems to me no less complex than my comment about the functioning of the brain, I’m guessing that you are comparing dirt on a bike to fat on a woman, and physical inefficiency on a man. For a lot of people cleaning the ‘dirt’ off further imbalances the bike leaving it seemingly unable to properly access its fuel leaving it functions to work in an extremely erratic manner.
People have always had various views on fat, love, hate indifference. The fact that nowadays hate seems the only choice is a construct of the status quo, that is not quite the same as a dislike of laziness or lack of stunning beauty.
I hate the BMI. I had a friend who was all muscle, very little fat on him, legally obese because muscle weighs more than fat.
Now, if we had a way of saying “this is your weight from fat, this is your weight from muscle. Based on the two of them, you are X pounds of fat higher than your healthiest fat/muscle/weight ratio.” I mean, who’s going to look at a body builder and say they’re fat?
I provided an explanation of why “Women face Anti-Fat Bias At…” At no time did I pass a judgment. And if you want to extend the analogy, you should compare excessive dieting to the morons who lighten their bikes by removing ‘unessential’ parts. You can tell them by the burned shins, bleeding palms, and in the worst cases, mangled legs and cracked heads. And ironically, by the extra mud they’re carrying because the exposed parts retain it more easily.
Someone mentioned this up above, but how much of this effect can be explained by the utter uselessness of BMI in anybody with higher than average muscle mass? The “obese” weightlifters and so forth?
I don’t doubt that moderately overweight women receive far more negative comments than moderately overweight men. Beer guts are socially acceptable, “muffin tops” are not. I just think that BMI is a vast, stinking pile of crap and am curious to know if the study did allow that some of those high-BMI men were actually super buff, or if they controlled for that- what I want to know is whether women and men of similar physical characteristics were compared.
I mean, realistically this would maybe move the needle from “obvious bias” to “flawed test that doesn’t prove a bias I know is out there from experience anyway” but I just flail with rage every time I see BMI touted as an indicator of someone’s relative fatness.
Mhaille,
A beer gut exists and is somewhat perceptible regardless of how someone dresses. In contrast, while I have a “muffin top” if I wear low-rise jeans and a top that cuts off at my navel, it’s nonexistent if I wear a sundress (after all, the phrase takes its metaphor from having something that’s bound in at the bottom, then suddenly pops out at the top). Criticisms of “muffin tops” therefore tend to be more about telling women to dress in a way deemed Appropriate for their body type than about saying “full hips are terrible.”
BMI is useless as a measure of what obesity is actually supposed to be, i.e. the level of fat in the body.
PG,
I think Mhaille is saying the same thing — because male physiology is such that a man can have a lower percentage body fat at a much higher BMI than women, using BMI to measure “anti-fat bias” is a flawed methodology.