Shocker: Weight Affects Women’s Paychecks More Than Men’s
October 15, 2010
by Kathryn Ciano
|The opinions expressed herein are those of the author, and not necessarily those of The New Agenda.
New studies suggest that very thin women earn proportionately more money than do average-sized women. Comprising only women within 25lbs of doctor-recommended weight, the latter study strictly compares the rail-thin to her average-sized female colleagues.
The Wall Street Journal reports this week that employers “seem to treat women…the way the fashion industry does”; thin women get much higher paychecks than do average-weight women, while thin men tend to earn less than their average-weight colleagues:
The study is the first look at the effects of being very thin on men vs. women. Separate studies of 11,253 Germans and 12,686 U.S. residents led by Timothy A. Judge of the University of Florida found very thin women, weighing 25 pounds less than the group norm, earned an average $15,572 a year more than women of normal weight. Women continued to experience a pay penalty as their weight increased above average levels, although a smaller one — presumably because they had already violated social norms for the ideal female appearance. A woman who gained 25 pounds above the average weight earned an average $13,847 less than an average-weight female.
Men were also penalized for violating stereotypes about ideal male appearance, but in a different way. Thin guys earned $8,437 less than average-weight men. But they were consistently rewarded for getting heavier, a trend that tapered off only when their weight hit the obese level. In one study, the highest pay point, on average, was reached for guys who weighed a strapping 207 pounds.
Plenty of logical explanations account for the disparity and have nothing to do with “sizeism.” Perhaps folks who conform to social image ideals produce better results because they can better influence others. Perhaps people who work hard to attain an unnatural weight—very thin for women, overtly muscular for men—apply the same work ethic to their jobs. Perhaps women who care enough about body image to forego dessert are more attuned to their bosses’ opinion of their performance in other areas. Or perhaps the body types prevalent in the study sites—Germany and Florida—tend towards thin, and 25lbs becomes a highly variable range.
Even more poignant is the idea that a great deal of weight control is competitiveness. Weight plays into office politics. Office politics affect confidence. Confidence in turn changes the way people perceive themselves—and changes the way people negotiate for employer perception or pay.
WSJ goes on to cite a September George Washington University study comparing obesity costs across genders:
Meanwhile, in separate research, economists at George Washington University tabulated the cost of obesity and found that it’s more expensive for a woman to be obese than for a man, according to the New York Times. (Their calculations included direct costs, like medical expenses, and indirect expenses, like lost wages and reduced work productivity.) While a man racks up $2,646 annually in extra expenses if he is obese, a woman’s obesity costs her $4,879, almost twice as much[.]
The weight-gender-pay spectrum reeks of sexist scandal, but there’s another side to this story.
Women have fared much better in the recession than have men. Women’s paychecks may be more elastic to social pressures, but this flexibility provides a measure of job security that men’s inelastic, less-sensitive paychecks seem to lack.
When considering drastic measures like the Equal Pay Act 2010 that will subject women’s salaries to the inelastic measures men enjoy, recall that pay flexibility has allowed women to retain jobs at a much higher rate during the recession. Women have also bounced back into the workforce in droves, while male-dominated sectors continue to fall and men continue their weak showing in gender-neutral industries.
Price always conveys information.
Paycheck disparity may sound like scandal, but as a measure of personality cues, workplace signaling, willingness to negotiate, and hours actually worked, this is merely one more factor in the employee informational bundle.
Employers pay workers who product more than they cost. If weight plays into this formula, hopeful employees take note. If we erect a price floor by attempting to thwart the market information available here (or by passing yet more “equal pay” legislation), the next round of layoffs will hurt much worse.
It’s a form of blackmail by the employer, IMO. I’m certain employers are taking this strategy because they know women historically are expected to take less pay for more work. Men are used to getting more pay, no matter how little they produce.
In this economy, women fare better than men because women, unlike men, are assustomed to being discriminated against. I can’t help but find it poetic justice that the men are victims of their own greed and worse, their continued bias against women in the workplace. It reminds me of how the men of China are now complaining about the lack of women in China for them to marry — they are discovering to their dismay that the disparity between the number of men as compared to women exists because in their blind hatred of females, they didn’t take into consideration that killing almost every baby girl born in China was obviously not only horrific but a glimpse into how hatred can make you both blind and stupid.
Hey boyz, karma is a bitch, and she’s sick and tired of being discriminated against and you’re time has come to reap what you have sown.
I have heard that tall men make more money than average or short men also. Appearance is a big deal at work. You need to look the part, what ever part you are playing. It is easy to wear the expected uniform or outfit but it is very hard to alter what you natural physical appearance is. What I find interesting is where I work the skinny people are always bringing in fattening food with no redeeming nutritional value but they never eat any of it. The chubby folks don’t bring in food. And I work in a group that studies Type 2 Diabetes and there is only one table in the hall where food or drink is even allowed! Still they will go to extremes to tempt their fellow workers with unhealthy crap that sits in their face all day long.
the anti-feminist motive is obvious in this article; doesn’t need to be dissected.
NOW should have told Jerry Brown that while “whore” was tolerated, “fat whore” was an insult too far. :-/
“Perhaps people who work hard to attain an unnatural weight—very thin for women, overtly muscular for men—apply the same work ethic to their jobs.”
So why is the disparity worse for women than men?
“drastic measures like the Equal Pay Act 2010 that will subject women’s salaries to the inelastic measures men enjoy”
Um. What.
Fascinating – I’d love to see the raw data. Media reports usually go with the shock headline rather than reflect the complete findings of a study and explaining the gender gap in earnings is complex. Do employers believe obese female employees will be less healthy and therefore less reliable? Heart disease is identified with overwight men at least as much if not more than women. So is it just all about cultural image as cultivation theory suggests and does this operate equally across all professions and jobs? The problem with most of these studies is they tend to focus on a very small employment area such as the CEOs of one of the linked studies. There is no doubt that women as a group get paid less over a lifetime of work than men but tha answer is to increase the involvement of men in child rearing so thaey suffer equal discrimination rather than suggest a crash diet would solve the problem
Seriously, I realize that the position expressed here — that equal pay legislation is a bad idea because it may prevent employers from making salary decisions on the basis of the valuable “market information” provided by women’s physical appearances — is “not necessarily [that] of The New Agenda,” but I’m still interested in hearing how it fits in to the goals of this organization.
the 15th -
TNA is for the Paycheck Fairness Act. We have spoken out on it on CNBC, Huffpost and more. Check the first story in our Feature tab.
This is Kathryn’s opinion – hence the disclaimer – not TNA’s opinion.
the 15th –
This article reflects my opinion and not the opinion of The New Agenda.
To be clear:
In my personal view, equal pay is more effectively achieved through people’s action and behavior, NOT through acts of Congress. After all: If equal pay legislation worked, we wouldn’t *need* *yet another* “equal pay” act in 2010!
One of the most important premises of the nonpartisan New Agenda is equal pay. I am a staunch supporter of equal pay! The only way in which my views differ from TNA’s noble cause is that my understanding of equal pay rests on the choices made by employers and employees, rather than the choices made by Congress.
True “equal pay” means that people have equal opportunities to make the same salary, regardless of gender or a host of other historically-discriminatory categories.
Happily for women, our actions and behavior have helped us keep and earn jobs at a much better rate than have men during this recession.
The problem with legislature (in my personal opinion, which again does not reflect the opinions of The New Agenda) is that it creates a pay floor. If Congress *forces* employers to pay people the same amount, then other factors (like how hard we work, how many hours we’re willing to work, etc) all go out the window.
As a woman, I’d much rather leave a little “play in the joints” when it comes to salary so that I can enjoy the benefits that come with a better work environment.
Indeed, it’s precisely because women have driven a slightly less stringent bargain with employers that we are keeping our jobs while men are getting fired in droves during the recession. In many ways women in the workplace have chosen to bargain for a set of benefits different from those for which men traditionally bargain.
Keeping one’s job is just such an “unseen” benefit. One women have earned and that is in these uncertain times frankly a much better deal than lockstep-salaried laid-off men have achieved.
Leave your Response Want an avatar? Get a gravatar!
Community Room
February 22, 2012 at 11:22 am
February 17, 2012 at 2:39 pm
February 6, 2012 at 4:25 pm
January 30, 2012 at 2:36 pm
January 26, 2012 at 4:38 pm
January 23, 2012 at 1:04 pm
January 15, 2012 at 11:37 am
January 9, 2012 at 6:36 pm
BUILD your NETWORK
Our Network of College Women
Protecting our Teenage Girls
We’re in the Media »
Click to see our latest stories in the media
More Stories »Recent Comments
The Latest from our Blog
Archives
Pioneer Mentors
Blogroll
Find us Online
Subscribe Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS)
The New Agenda is a 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to improving the lives of women and girls by bringing about systemic change in the media, at the workplace, at school and at home. More...