It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Female Pay Subject to Body Fat Mass

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 26 2005 @ 07:31 AM
A woman's pay reflects her body mass weight. A man's
pay isn't effected by his weight. hmmmmm Interesting.
Skinny girls get higher pay for the same work that a fat
girl does. Men can be fat, thin, or in the middle and their
pay isn't effected.


May 25, 2005

May 25, 2005 — WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Heavy-set women are likely to
face worse socioeconomic outcomes than slimmer colleagues, but fat men
do just fine, a new research study has found.

"Body mass significantly decreases women's family income," the study by
two researchers at New York University found. "However … men
experience no negative effects of body mass on economic outcomes."

Dalton Conley, director of NYU's Center for Advanced Social Science
Research, and NYU graduate student Rebecca Glauber found that a 1
percent increase in a woman's body mass index — a measure of weight
relative to height — pushes family income down by about 0.6 percent.

Similarly, the researchers found a woman's "occupational prestige,
" a measure of the social status of differing jobs, also dropped as
body mass rose, although to a somewhat lesser degree: 0.4
percent for each 1 percent increase in body mass.

Conley said the marriage market appeared to account for most
of the differences in body mass-related outcomes among women.

More at the site -

[edit on 5/26/2005 by FlyersFan]

posted on May, 27 2005 @ 11:37 AM
hmmm. I've seen studies that said otherwise.
I'll post the name and authors when I have access to the book, but it was something to do with the build of a man (including weight) influences his pay and success.

Regardless, interesting study.

posted on May, 28 2005 @ 10:04 PM
I wish I could say this surprised me, but it doesn't. I've observed that slender women also have more career opportunities. We had a woman in the Code Enforcement department who weighed 400 lbs, and never got beyond the status of clerk until she lost (willpower) 260 lbs.

Nothing else improved or declined; she just lost the weight. Meanwhile, guys who were equally overweight seemed to have no bar to advancement.

posted on May, 29 2005 @ 06:48 AM
Wait wait wait!

*Valhall places shield of integrity around Byrd*

Let's get straight what appears to be affecting the pay...

Relative Dimensions

It's not body fat mass - though if you weigh 450 lbs and you're 5'4" - odds are you're going to have more body fat mass than a 5'4" 110 lb person. BUT - "skinny", "slender", "thin" - does not equate to a low body fat mass. Take it from me - I'm the 5'4" 110 lb person who has weighed between 98 and 112 (except for during pregnancies) since I was 13 years old. My body fat mass percent number is embarrassing! Let me put it this way - in 1992, when I weighed 104-106 lbs, they called me "Quarter Pounder" just off my body fat mass reading! Hopefully it's better now than it was then, but probably not much!

[edit on 5-29-2005 by Valhall]

posted on May, 29 2005 @ 10:20 AM
That is, unless the boss is a chubby chaser, then the full figured women would get higher pay than the skinny women.

posted on May, 29 2005 @ 10:28 AM
Valhall, good point I know many of my co-workers that look heavy but actually have average BF% and others who look average and have high BF%. Actually I am required to weigh them in and give em the old tape measure if they look nasty or fat and surprisingly many of them have average I cant do anything about it.

Yes it may be harder for heavy set women to get the same jobs as skinny women, but that is no excuse. My mother (god bless her) is a heavy set women and so is here sister, my aunt. They probably had it a little harder trying to apply for jobs, but that is still no excuse not to get a good job.....just try a little harder, that's all it takes.

posted on May, 29 2005 @ 10:33 AM
Exactly, Sporty. And this is the problem I have with a great deal of these "research results" that get published and have us running about like chickens with our heads cut off.

They don't follow good science. If these researchers had chosen a bunch of women of the same relative dimensions and checked their body fat masses, they would have found scatter that would have shut their mouths. Instead, they didn't lock the variable "size" before they started checking the variable "body fat mass". You can't have two variables wandering all over the place and then say you've found a relation for one of them.


[edit on 5-29-2005 by Valhall]

posted on May, 29 2005 @ 10:39 AM
Here is a good site that explains and breaks it down pretty good.

If anyone would like a free Marine Corps body/fat calculator please U2U me and I will email it to you. It's fairly a small file so space shouldnt be a problem.

Or here is a free online calculator

I can see it now, all the women are gonna go grab the measuring tape....

[edit on 29/5/2005 by SportyMB]

posted on May, 29 2005 @ 10:47 AM
Yeah, here you porky.

That's worse than before! I've graduated from a quarter-pounder to a Carl's Jr!!!


posted on May, 29 2005 @ 10:55 AM
Valhall, 31% BF......oh my gosh....I didnt think that was possible for someone weighing in at a whopping 111 lbs soaking wet!!!!
I think it's the hips.....33in yup thats what it is.

I ended up with 11%. 170 lbs w/ a 31 in waist.

Why do women have to do all the wrist, forearm and hip measurements?

posted on May, 29 2005 @ 10:58 AM

Originally posted by SportyMB
Valhall, 31% BF......oh my gosh....I didnt think that was possible for someone weighing in at a whopping 111 lbs soaking wet!!!!
I think it's the hips.....33in yup thats what it is.

I ended up with 11%. 170 lbs w/ a 31 in waist.

Why do women have to do all the wrist, forearm and hip measurements?

I've got ....



Does this dress make me look fat? *

Sad part is - I'm not real sure where you're supposed to measure your hips - are you?

[edit on 5-29-2005 by Valhall]

posted on May, 29 2005 @ 11:02 AM
Yeah, they're just trying to find a causal link based on a quantifiable. That's really not what's going on.

It's attractiveness discrimination and it's subjective. Not based on any number other than 1-10.

That's probably why the correlation doesn't work the same for men? BMI? How about BUMI (Butt Ugly Measurement Index)? No weight scale required. Ugly men scare everybody, no matter how much they weigh.

I'm not defending discrimination by the way, just saying...

posted on May, 29 2005 @ 11:13 AM
As RANT said, it all comes down to looks.

And in the end that's about it. Women (for the most part) look at personality and attitude and all that weird stuff, that's why it isnt really a factor for men. But Im not gonna lie, I look at the body...Im a butt man myself. And most young men in thier 20's probably have the same thoughts about it as I do.

And in todays world many office managers and people with power are young men who the company hiers so they can mold into thier image.

No matter how educated or well prep'd these young men are.....they tsill have that second opinion (get it

posted on May, 29 2005 @ 11:23 AM
Okay, I'm calling tilt on this thing.

In this example, I have held my weight and completely carved my big ass off - I'm basically a walking stick with boobs. I only dropped 2% in body fat.

In this example, I blew up to 200 lbs, and still have no butt, and I dropped another 1%:

200 lbs on my height and I'd look like this for real:

[edit on 5-29-2005 by Valhall]

posted on May, 29 2005 @ 11:29 AM
Of course, in order to be 200 lbs and have a 24" waiste and 24" hips - I'd either have to have thighs like Cindy Crawford or my breasts would be able to enter the county 15 minutes before the rest of me.

Since I'm making this stuff up - I'm going with the boobs. *

posted on May, 29 2005 @ 11:30 AM
Heres a few more links, try them and cross reference the results

I got the same for all of them.......

posted on May, 29 2005 @ 11:30 AM
I did the same thing, Val. I put in my real info, then altered it, adding on a ton of pounds and my percentage didn't move. Up and down, it stayed the same.
I don't trust it.

posted on May, 29 2005 @ 08:33 PM
^ What they said

But, also, higher paying jobs in higher paying positions often include more interaction with other high level businessmen and women. Looking good is a major part of business, and that is a huge assest.

PS - I can out to 18% @ 175lbs and 34in. Maybe it's the male thing, but adding or subtracting 5 pounds or an inch or two maed a large difference.

posted on May, 29 2005 @ 09:12 PM
Do you think that people that work at lower paying jobs become fat or their fat causes them to work at lower paying jobs?
You shouldn't believe all the statistics you here on the tv. The news often misconstrues the facts. Making preliminary reports hold more weight then they should

new topics

top topics


log in