Hello everyone…Lenka from farkleberries here, proud to be guest-blogging at feministe this week!
I thought this might be a good forum to discuss something that’s been on my mind a lot lately: the increasing media and public trend of equating food with “sin,” intemperance, even immorality, especially when women are doing the eating. Strangely enough, after I decided on this morning’s topic I consulted the Virtual I Ching, and darned if both hexagrams didn’t come up as “Corners of the Mouth: Providing Nourishment“:
At the foot of the mountain, thunder:
The image of Providing Nourishment.
Thus the superior man is careful of his words
And temperate in eating and drinking.
“The superior man takes it as a pattern for the nourishment and cultivation of his character. Words are a movement going from within outward. Eating and drinking are movements from without inward. Both kinds of movement can be modified by tranquillity. For tranquillity keeps the words that come out of the mouth from exceeding proper measure, and keeps the food that goes into the mouth from exceeding its proper measure. Thus character is cultivated.”
Excusing the androcentric language of the ancient oracle, we read in these old words the same prejudicial sentiment that underlies the belief that overweight people, especially women, are somehow inferior to those that are not – and that women should not only be thin, but they should just be “temperate in their use of words,” and just shut up.
On that note, a little about my personal experience with weight. After being a very thin teenager (5′ 3″ and 92 pounds without really trying; my high school nurse was concerned that I might be anorexic) until about age 20, I rose to a high of about 165 pounds about 6 years later. I did eventually lose the weight again, although like many people I’ve had alternating periods of lower and higher body weights that have depended on my emotional state, my job, and my relationship status. Currently I’m about midway between these two weights, and to be perfectly honest, although I’m still about 20 pounds above my Met Life actuarial “ideal weight,” I feel as though this is the “right” weight for this point in my life. Fortunately, I’ve concluded that I am most content with myself and my body where I am, and in retrospect I realize that during both my very “thin” and very “heavy” phases, I was experiencing some level of depression and unhappiness.
Although I received positive feedback from my always-skinny parents on my “shape” when was extra-thin, for me, being thin did not equate with being happy. However, like much of our society, they simply assumed that when my weight was down, I was “successful and cheery.” For me, optimal balance is not necessarily where society decrees my “proper measure” to be.
But at those times when I’ve been heavier, I did notice that I somehow became “invisible” to the outside world. One of the effects I saw was that people at sales desks or in other positions of service would frequently overlook me for other, thinner shoppers, even when I had tried to get their attention first. Part of me thought I was imagining things, or being paranoid. After some time, I realized I wasn’t imagining it.
Today, I read this story about a Rice Unversity study that examined prejudice against overweight female shoppers [via Brutal Women] at a large Houston shopping mall. Apparently, it’s true: if you are overweight, salespeople will treat you like a second-class citizen:
Sales clerks tend to subtly discriminate against overweight shoppers but treat them more favorably if they perceive that the individual is trying to lose weight, according to a study by Rice University researchers.
The research, conducted in a large Houston shopping mall, will be presented in a poster session at the annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) April 15-17 in Los Angeles. SIOP singled out the study as the most outstanding student contribution to the conference by selecting it for the organization’s John C. Flanagan Award…The researchers used female participants only for their study because research consistently shows that women are judged and stigmatized on the basis of weight and appearance more than men are, King said.
Ten average-weight Caucasian women between the ages of 19 and 28 played the role of customer in four different scenarios: an average-weight shopper in casual attire, an average-weight shopper in professional attire, an obese shopper (the result of a size 22 obesity prosthetic worn under the clothing) in casual attire and an obese shopper in professional attire. Following a memorized script, the shoppers sought assistance with picking out a birthday gift in various stores; after each shopping experience, they filled out a questionnaire evaluating the way they were treated by the sales clerk. A tape recorder in their purse captured the conversations so that the sales clerks’ tone, inflection and choice of words could be analyzed. In addition, the researchers stationed an observer in the store within hearing range of the shopper to provide a second opinion of how each interaction fared by filling out a questionnaire after each shopping experience.
Based on data from interactions in 152 stores in a large mall, the researchers found greater levels of interpersonal discrimination directed toward obese shoppers than toward average-weight shoppers. The findings were based on the observers’ and customers’ reports of the sales clerks’ eye contact, friendliness, rudeness, smile, premature ending of the interaction, length of interaction time, and negative language and tone. Almost three-fourths of the sales clerks were women.
“One of the most stigmatized groups is the obese because their problem is perceived to be controllable,” King said. She noted that in her study, the casually dressed obese shoppers experienced more interpersonal discrimination than the professionally dressed obese shoppers and both the casually dressed and professionally dressed average-weight shoppers. The professional attire implied that the obese shopper was making an effort to improve her appearance, which removed the justification for prejudice, King said.
The next phase of the study seemed to bear that analysis out. Seven women between the ages of 19 and 24 (six Caucasian, one Hispanic) took on the role of obese and non-obese shoppers, but another variable was added: the shopper carried either a diet cola or an ice cream drink. The diet-cola drinker called attention to her drink and mentioned that she’s on a diet and just completed a half marathon. The shopper with the ice cream drink also called attention to her beverage and mentioned that she’s not on a diet and could never run a half marathon.
Based on interactions conducted in 66 stores, interpersonal discrimination did not differ between average-weight shoppers regardless of whether they were carrying the diet cola or the ice cream drink, or between obese shoppers who drank the diet beverage. As King noted, the perception that the latter group was making an effort to lose weight lowered the justification for discrimination against them. The obese shoppers with the ice cream drink received the greatest amount of interpersonal discrimination, presumably because they fit the stereotype of overweight people as being lazy.
Perhaps the results of this study don’t come as surprising news, but the research does prove what many of us suspected all along. The article goes on to mention that the women who experienced weight-related informal discrimination filled out questionnaires detailing their satisfaction with their shopping experience, how much they spent, and whether they would shop at that establishment again. Many of them spent considerably less when they were treated poorly, and would not return to the store in the future. Clearly, even informal weight discrimination impacts businesses’ bottom line.
Looking beyond this study, we see evidence of contradictory messages consumers receive regarding their consumption habits. While some merchants intentionally or unwittingly discriminate against larger-size customers, other marketers like restaurants that may occupy the same venues are increasingly advertising not only “super size” items, but “super-super-size” items with gruesomely high calorie counts that colloqually go by the name “food porn.”
The term is apt. Even if many women aren’t indulging in 1,400-calorie hamburgers, societal perception of overindulgence in food increasingly tags women as not only sloppy or intemperate, but downright sinful. Observe how people – especially women – police themselves when selecting from a buffet or dishing up family style. Men and other women often think nothing of expressing comments like “you sure must be hungry!” “you’re sure you want to eat all that?” “Something you’re not telling us, dear? You’re not eating for two, are you? (wink, wink)”
Ironically, the more food (incorrectly) becomes associated with immorality or forbidden pleasure, the more out of touch we become with our real bodies and our natural appetites. Much has been written about the so-called “French Paradox” and the idea that European women are statistically less obese than American women. My theory? Woman abroad are probably far less uptight about eating in general, and know how to enjoy food without viewing every bite as a crime against prevailing standards of beauty.
Food isn’t the enemy, but our internalized and socially sanctioned toxic attitudes about women, nourishment and body image certainly are.
UPDATE: I just want to clarify something in my post that may be unclear, as it was taken out of context on Joel’s post, mentioned in the comments. He makes some valid detailed points in his disagreement with my post, but the point I am responding to was his mention of my “struggle with anorexia”‘:
Hello Joel –
Thank you for the detailed response.
May I correct something you wrote in your post? You mention that “Lenka has a history of anorexia. I do not wish to belittle her struggle against this disease.”
Actually, Joel, I do not have a history of anorexia, or of any other eating disorder. What I wrote in the post was that in my teen years, I weighed about 92 pounds – on the low side of normal weight for my height, but I was a normal eater with a healthy teen appetite.
However, I was quite skinny with a very small frame, and the high school nurse notified my parents that my low weight was of concern. Anorexia is of course a serious issue for young girls, but that, fortunately, was not a problem. In the twenty years since then, I’ve had fluctuations mainly in my jobs (some sedentary, some rather active) and exercise levels which are at the root of those weight changes.
I just wanted to address that specific point.
By the way, thank you for the detailed follow up…yes, this Rice U. study did only address the experiences women in the test group, but if the test group were composed of men, I am sure there would be similar effects.
In case anyone’s curious, that current “comfortable weight” I mentioned is 138 pounds. Not terribly high, but still 20 pounds overweight according to those Met Life tables. 😉