Features

derrida · #1

Study: Obese Women Earn 30 Percent Less

WASHINGTON (AP)--Being fat may hurt your income--if you're a highly educated woman. So says research from Finland that suggests weight is a pay barrier for certain women, but not for men.

Obese women who are highly educated earn about 30 percent less _ a difference of at least $5,000 a year--than normal-weight or even plump women, the study found. When analyzed by occupation, women with white-collar jobs earned less if they were obese.

Obesity had little or no effect on pay if women were poorly educated, manual workers or self-employed--and no statistically significant effect on men's pay, the study found.

``This suggests that, socio-economically, obesity is not as stigmatizing for men as it is for women,'' concluded the University of Helsinki researchers.

They couldn't explain why, or why there was a bigger effect on some women, except to say the pressure on women to be thin may be strongest among higher socio-economic classes.

The researchers combed national registries that track Finns' education, occupation and income to choose 2,314 men and 2,068 women for the study. Participants had to be employed in 1993, with no leaves for illness, thus attempting to rule out obesity-caused disease as a reason for lower income.

One limitation: Participants reported their own weight.

The study was published Wednesday in the American Journal of Public Health.

derrida · #2

Fat chicks: not only are they worthless, passive cunts, but you can't even fuck them![/i]

Bobo Adobo · #3

Although they do give the best blowjobs.

kahljorn · #4

anothing reason not to eat so much fucking mcdonalds.

The One and Only... · #5

This is potentially beneficial.

You see, fat chicks are not only harming themselves by being fat, but they are also negative externalities. By lowering the incentive to stay fat, or rather increasing the incentive to be thin, we should see an increase in the number of thin chicks over time assuming rationality among women. Thus, a decrease in the aggregate number of negative externalities.

phnompehn · #6

Quote:

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

This is potentially beneficial.

You see, fat chicks are not only harming themselves by being fat, but they are also negative externalities. By lowering the incentive to stay fat, or rather increasing the incentive to be thin, we should see an increase in the number of thin chicks over time assuming rationality among women. Thus, a decrease in the aggregate number of negative externalities.

Someone has a "No Fat Chicks!" bumper sticker on their Trapper-Keeper.

Perndog · #7

Only a true loser would think making women skinnier would make the world a better place. Even if none of them were fat, three quarters of them would still be ugly, vapid, or both.

That goes for men, too, by the way.

davinxtk · #8

Yeah, let me also say to the sexism thing:
Finland.

Jeanette X · #9

Quote:

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

This is potentially beneficial.

You see, fat chicks are not only harming themselves by being fat, but they are also negative externalities. By lowering the incentive to stay fat, or rather increasing the incentive to be thin, we should see an increase in the number of thin chicks over time assuming rationality among women. Thus, a decrease in the aggregate number of negative externalities.

And just how much do you weigh again?

Emu · #10

Quote:

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

By lowering the incentive to stay fat, or rather increasing the incentive to be thin, we should see an increase in the number of thin chicks over time assuming rationality among women.

What the hell does weight have to do with rationality? I've met thin smart chicks, and I've met dipshit fat chicks.

Perndog · #11

He means, assuming women are rational and there are incentives to be thin, fat chicks will lose weight for those incentives.

Emu · #12

I quoted you in my sig. I thought that was good for some reason.

But AREN'T there "incentives" to be thin already? You're more likely to get fucked, you'll probably get a better job, and all that other crap that our country focuses on instead of more important things?

Perndog · #13

I guess that means women aren't rational then, huh?

Or some women aren't interested in sex and are happy with jobs that will hire fat women.

El Blanco · #14

Quote:

three quarters of them would still be ugly, vapid, or both.

You can get a paper bag for the ugly ones and as for vapid, who cares what they have to say in the first place?

Perndog · #15

For some people (me) sex is a pretty low priority and even among the beautiful women there's only one in a thousand that contributes anything to my life just by looking good. I'd usually rather look at a building.

mesobe · #16

a bit of lotion and some tissues saves you the hassle and the expense of having to get into a chicks panties.

Emu · #17

Oh mesobe, you casanova.

El Blanco · #18

Ya, but Carpal Tunnel Syndrome can be a bitch.

Also, sometimes a substitute just won't cut it.

davinxtk · #19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perndog

For some people (me) sex is a pretty low priority and even among the beautiful women there's only one in a thousand that contributes anything to my life just by looking good. I'd usually rather look at a building.

I second that.

Zhukov · #20

Oh, hey, what are you guys doing for International Womens Day?

The One and Only... · #21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeanette X

And just how much do you weigh again?

191 lbs. 5'9", large body type. Don't know where that puts me...

kellychaos · #22

Please priotize the characteristics that get you the job as you see fit:

Physical attractiveness
Personality
Personal Connections
Personality
Educational Experience
Personal Experience
Talent

P.S. Gratuitus sex optional.

El Blanco · #23

Kind of depends on the job. If you are in sales or somesort of customer service, personal appearance plays a large part in your job.

Personality also goes a long way.

And if you are willing to train and the pay is low, then experience doesn't rank too high.