This point: "...nobody should have to shrink themselves to improve their chances of getting a partner or a job. But women often do, so dismissing those who go down this road as vain or as sell-outs is monumentally unfair. It adds insult to social injury." Clearly, a person in our world needs a job. More often than not, wants a partner. All I can think to ask is, are the jobs and the partners worth whatever you put yourself through to get them? Does the job, the relationship, last? What other penalties are there? Our culture is so appearance and age conscious----it's interesting that thinness in particular is so prized. "You can never be too thin or too rich." How old is that?
Spot on, as usual. The point about not blaming women for structural issues raises an interesting conundrum that critics of "choice feminism" have pointed out for many years: that is, what is the line between individual (consumer) freedom and our responsibility to the collective? For example, a woman should feel free to use Botox since appearance dictates access to certain privileges in our society (plus, bodily autonomy). But what is the effect that we are having on other women and girls when we do so? Can we organize for structural change while yielding to patriarchal, ageist beauty standards? I fear there is no clear answer.
It’s also interesting to note that even engaged, about to get married women often choose wedding dresses that “require” them to lose weight in order to fit into them. As if their grooms may jilt them if they turn up a few points da less than fully desirable.
Having thought about this a bit more, I wanted to add this point. This study is about partners and jobs but, obviously, this obesity penalty is everywhere. It's about friends and public regard and---especially self-esteem. So not only are women motivated to get thin for jobs and partners, they are driven by the forces inside their own heads. How else do you explain Serena Williams?
The study is interesting, but there's a confounder the matching design isn't set up to capture: motivational state. A woman who decides to use a GLP-1 is a woman who has already decided to change her life. That decision requires seeking out a doctor, paying (or fighting insurance), sustaining weekly injections through side effects, sustaining eating changes for six to twelve months. That is not a minor psychological event.
The matched control group controls for initial BMI, health, income, employment, partnership, well-being. It does not control for the underlying decision to enter market activity, which the treatment group has made and the control group has not. Job applications and dating activity would likely rise for anyone who made that decision, whether they lost weight or not.
There's an additional layer that pushes the same direction. Women who choose GLP-1s are not a random sample of fat women. They are the subset who reject their current body, and the decision itself signals a specific psychological state, anxiety about staying as they are. Women who don't take GLP-1s may include those who have arrived at self-acceptance, whose well-being at baseline is genuinely higher. So Diamond's finding that GLP-1 users don't report improved well-being over the horizon is not evidence against a bias-shift explanation. It is what motivational selection predicts. The anxiety that drives the decision is not resolved by the weight loss.
One way to test this: look at GLP-1 non-responders, the ten to fifteen percent who take the drug but don't lose weight. If their employment and marriage outcomes also rise, the mechanism is motivation, not body size. If the outcomes only rise for responders, then Diamond's reading holds. The paper's design as reported doesn't seem to isolate this.
The fat-first-impression discount is real. But the magnitude here may be smaller than 29pp/27pp once motivational selection is removed.
Your first point is valid although you would expect motivation to affect confidence and well-being levels, which were static or even trended downward for those who lost weight. The second point doesn't hold because the second group also wanted to start a GLP-1 but hadn't yet, a detail I have added to this post. Thanks!
The impact of obesity on employment (of women, not men) is one I’ve read about consistently in psych journals. It’s one I’ve witnessed in my clients. And it seems to happen at two levels. First, there seems to be a strong negative, visceral response to obese women. Second, they are often less confident, feeling they aren’t taken as seriously, and feeling overlooked when it comes to promotions. They talk about the “fat shaming” they endure.
Bear in mind that no one WANTS to be obese. It is a complex stew of genetics, diet (which can be impacted by everything from income to sensory processing issues) and mental health challenges. I have clients who have tried every conceivable food plan and haven’t lost weight. Some can’t take GLP-1’s. I’d love to live in a society where we are far more concerned about health (because excess weight can be dangerous) and not appearance. Of course, the focus on appearance rarely seems to apply to men. After all, we elected a fat, sloppy president who calls everyone else a “fat pig.” How’s that for ironic?
Given how interconnected fatphobia is with racism and colonialism, the rush to embrace GLP1s seems right on-brand for the current moment. And I'm not blaming anyone who chooses to use them. I know they can have significant health benefits, and as this study suggests, social and professional benefits, too. But when I'm tempted (and I have been, even as a slightly above straight-sized woman, because aging sucks and who doesn't want the social approbation that comes with a small, sleek body), it helps me to remember the racist, colonialist history of fatphobia that Sabrina Strings and others have written about. And then to look at the world around me and remember exactly who wants me not to take up space. Then I feel a little better about my middle-aged dumpling of a stomach. But it scares me so much that it increasingly feels like there's only one acceptable way to be a human female, in the US at least.
Kate, fantastic column! I appreciate and admire your ability to synthesize a lot of information and then follow likely responses theoretically. Remember those tv shows a while back where drill instructors berated fat people until they starved themselves and overexercised? The immediate responses were stunning. Each one had ambitious plans for the future. Most of those people gained their weight back. Eventually, GLP-1 users will hit this point. If you re willing to eat small amounts for months, tolerate GI disturbances etc.to lose excess weight, that may be a tolerable way to live every day for some time. Many will learn of deficits in their bodies as a result of uneven nutrition over time. The GI tract is being manipulated for one result only. The fact that there are recordable short-term benefits, such as being hired or finding a partner-is only relevant as long as the individual continues to use GLP-1s. The drug has simply not been around enough years to come to some of the conclusions I've read about. In the past, new drugs would be discussed in the media with press releases from the FDA. I've noticed that with GLP-1s that over-enthusiastic PR people from the manufacturers are releasing this info about how GLP-1s MAY have some effect OVER TIME regarding reducing risks for cancer, and all kinds of other shaky and indefensible (at the moment) claims. This is a very effective way to get more customers, and for current customers to continue using this expensive and not thoroughly investigated drug. Our culture celebrates positive change stories. This phenomenon has a role in how this drug is being perceived and used. As you imply, sometimes the changes inside of an individual which "motivates" them to seek out GLP-1s is what many Americans find appealing. Everyone wants to think that if they set their mind to it, any goal is achievable. This concept is a very popular American line of thinking-the "can do" spirit. For many, though, "motivation" may feel more like desperation and punishment for not meeting societal standards. Society admires motivated people-but motivations are not always healthy or made with your overall life satisfaction in mind. If you're thinking I want to do this to get hired or to go on dates, it is ignoring other needs which are also significant, and you may feel resentment regarding your sacrifices. Not a good outlook for continued "motivation" for extrinsic validation.
However, just as with those TV shows which seemed so fabulous, unless you eat that little and exercise like that continuously, whatever you gained (or lost) cannot be maintained. It is ironic that our media and advertisements bombard us constantly with close-ups of melted cheese, giant sandwiches and fancy desserts while simultaneously promoting thinness at any cost.
As women, we know very well that people in general respond more favorably to the thinnest version of ourselves.Lots of women have experienced this. I've heard many women joke about that at the time they met their now-spouse, they were "thin enough, long enough" to "land" a husband. After pregnancy, some women's bodies have changed so much that without fancy undergarments or plastic surgery, they will never look exactly as they did earlier.
Your body changes after you age, and whatever exercise "worked" for you at 30 won't work after 40. We should get to the point where you can "relax", eat healthily and somewhat sparingly
and you "look" the best you can for a human being who has lived for 35-40 years. If you can use artificial means to maintain your 25 year old appearance, your problems go way beyond what you see in the mirror. We will all get older and our appearance will change. The "motivation" of the manufacturers of GLP-1s is not to help people feel more whole and integrated, but to appeal to that never-ending voice in your head telling you that you're not good enough the way you are.
the key: be thin. Duh. Don't need a study for that. To a lesser extent it is also true for men climbing the corporate ladder. Decades ago, when my brother-in-law was working as a lobbyist for the insurance industry, he was the highest performing lobbyist in his company but never got promoted to VP. So he went to one of those expert consultants in how to succeed, and presented his situation, and asked when he should come back for the man's assessment: The consultant said, in effect "oh no need. I can give you the answer right now. How many CEOs of Insurance companies do you know who are morbidly obese, have an unkempt beard, and wear ill-fitting clothes?" My brother in-law thanked him and left. Did he go on a diet? Shave his beard? No. He decided that he could lose all the weight and keep it off (he played football in college) but he would be miserable. So no, he quit his job and started his own company. And he tidied up his beard and got tailor-made clothes (in Hong Kong on business trips). Today, at 80 years+ and retired, he is on a GLP-1 and looks great. We all need to find what makes us happy, and tune out all the other stuff.
As a child I simply ‘noticed’ that a few kids were heftier than the norm. Yes, there were occasional “fatty, fatty 2 x 4, can’t get thro the kitchen door!” slurs, but in a small town where everyone knows each other, it didn’t make sense to alienate those whom we had ongoing connections with on so many levels … their parents owned business where we bought things, we attended the same & only school in town, and we realized these (few) overweight kids were often just as smart & personable as anyone else … or more so.
In teen years it was more obvious that ‘cute girls’ had dates/boyfriends & ‘hefty girls less so, but that dissipated with age & the changing circumstances of real life concerns such as finding a job etc.
Entering the workforce those lines of distinction (fat vs fashionable) became more blurred as we discovered that life isn’t all about appearance. The women I worked with in offices were often married & had kids … a sure-fire way to lose that 26” waistline! But this didn’t seem to alter their ability to work at the levels their experience & education warranted.
— this is natural, as it should be, but this was also small- village 1960-70’s.
Today, as we have entered the ‘Information Age’ I suspect many of us - kids esp - are subjected to the social media barrages of ‘perfection’ … perfection sells, and is increasingly part of the fat-phobia conundrum. Factor in GLP 2, botox injections & Brazilian butt lifts … suddenly any physical shapes & sizes become optional? 🙄
In some cultures, fat is sometimes even considered beautiful, almost the norm & acceptable,
— those societies function at a different level of acceptance that is based more on who you are personally, socially & sometimes economically, but I wouldn’t be surprised if those people are healthier & happier human beings.
Personally, I am fat-phobic … except with my good friend Rose, who is smart as heck, outgoing, kind, etc. I am also homophobic … except for Anderson Cooper & Pete B. etc.
— the trend there is … people I get to know & admire … so I humanize them, sympathize with their fight against fat/gender etc, and almost automatically toss out the ‘othering’ stuff. Weird how that works, hey?
Being a Christian & believing in Christ’s Second Coming … with a following gradual return to perfection under his rule vs mankind’s rule … I remind myself that all these ‘wrinkles’ of human imperfections - visible & invisible - will be done away with. That’s the long view that I need to remind myself of when feeling phobic & condemning … of even my extra 20 lbs. in my 70’s!
* Another aspect not discussed here … WHY do people become obese?
One friend says it’s her way of protecting herself from unwanted sexual advances … she was a victim of her father’s pedophilia. That may be an extreme case in point, considering also that our society has become victim to fast-franken-food & all sorts of ‘added ingredients’ that our bodies don’t know what to do with. Obesity / health is a complex issue.
It sounds like what you're saying is that you disagree with the study because your life experience doesn't agree with the results. If that's what you mean, can you please say it more clearly? And if not, can you please clarify your thoughts? There's nothing wrong with thinking (or in this case, writing) out loud but I'd like to understand your points.
I am suggesting that my views on the topic were affected by my age & environment, and that although they have *evolved I still carry some tendencies to judgementalism — despite seeing the illogic & sometimes having mixed feelings.
I sometimes need to remind myself of The “Do unto others …” maxim. in order to reset my humanity.
This point: "...nobody should have to shrink themselves to improve their chances of getting a partner or a job. But women often do, so dismissing those who go down this road as vain or as sell-outs is monumentally unfair. It adds insult to social injury." Clearly, a person in our world needs a job. More often than not, wants a partner. All I can think to ask is, are the jobs and the partners worth whatever you put yourself through to get them? Does the job, the relationship, last? What other penalties are there? Our culture is so appearance and age conscious----it's interesting that thinness in particular is so prized. "You can never be too thin or too rich." How old is that?
Fuck. I wish I could think of something more profound to say but "fuck" seems to cover it all.
Spot on, as usual. The point about not blaming women for structural issues raises an interesting conundrum that critics of "choice feminism" have pointed out for many years: that is, what is the line between individual (consumer) freedom and our responsibility to the collective? For example, a woman should feel free to use Botox since appearance dictates access to certain privileges in our society (plus, bodily autonomy). But what is the effect that we are having on other women and girls when we do so? Can we organize for structural change while yielding to patriarchal, ageist beauty standards? I fear there is no clear answer.
It’s also interesting to note that even engaged, about to get married women often choose wedding dresses that “require” them to lose weight in order to fit into them. As if their grooms may jilt them if they turn up a few points da less than fully desirable.
Having thought about this a bit more, I wanted to add this point. This study is about partners and jobs but, obviously, this obesity penalty is everywhere. It's about friends and public regard and---especially self-esteem. So not only are women motivated to get thin for jobs and partners, they are driven by the forces inside their own heads. How else do you explain Serena Williams?
The study is interesting, but there's a confounder the matching design isn't set up to capture: motivational state. A woman who decides to use a GLP-1 is a woman who has already decided to change her life. That decision requires seeking out a doctor, paying (or fighting insurance), sustaining weekly injections through side effects, sustaining eating changes for six to twelve months. That is not a minor psychological event.
The matched control group controls for initial BMI, health, income, employment, partnership, well-being. It does not control for the underlying decision to enter market activity, which the treatment group has made and the control group has not. Job applications and dating activity would likely rise for anyone who made that decision, whether they lost weight or not.
There's an additional layer that pushes the same direction. Women who choose GLP-1s are not a random sample of fat women. They are the subset who reject their current body, and the decision itself signals a specific psychological state, anxiety about staying as they are. Women who don't take GLP-1s may include those who have arrived at self-acceptance, whose well-being at baseline is genuinely higher. So Diamond's finding that GLP-1 users don't report improved well-being over the horizon is not evidence against a bias-shift explanation. It is what motivational selection predicts. The anxiety that drives the decision is not resolved by the weight loss.
One way to test this: look at GLP-1 non-responders, the ten to fifteen percent who take the drug but don't lose weight. If their employment and marriage outcomes also rise, the mechanism is motivation, not body size. If the outcomes only rise for responders, then Diamond's reading holds. The paper's design as reported doesn't seem to isolate this.
The fat-first-impression discount is real. But the magnitude here may be smaller than 29pp/27pp once motivational selection is removed.
Your first point is valid although you would expect motivation to affect confidence and well-being levels, which were static or even trended downward for those who lost weight. The second point doesn't hold because the second group also wanted to start a GLP-1 but hadn't yet, a detail I have added to this post. Thanks!
It grieves me that we always have to live under someone else's gaze.
The impact of obesity on employment (of women, not men) is one I’ve read about consistently in psych journals. It’s one I’ve witnessed in my clients. And it seems to happen at two levels. First, there seems to be a strong negative, visceral response to obese women. Second, they are often less confident, feeling they aren’t taken as seriously, and feeling overlooked when it comes to promotions. They talk about the “fat shaming” they endure.
Bear in mind that no one WANTS to be obese. It is a complex stew of genetics, diet (which can be impacted by everything from income to sensory processing issues) and mental health challenges. I have clients who have tried every conceivable food plan and haven’t lost weight. Some can’t take GLP-1’s. I’d love to live in a society where we are far more concerned about health (because excess weight can be dangerous) and not appearance. Of course, the focus on appearance rarely seems to apply to men. After all, we elected a fat, sloppy president who calls everyone else a “fat pig.” How’s that for ironic?
Given how interconnected fatphobia is with racism and colonialism, the rush to embrace GLP1s seems right on-brand for the current moment. And I'm not blaming anyone who chooses to use them. I know they can have significant health benefits, and as this study suggests, social and professional benefits, too. But when I'm tempted (and I have been, even as a slightly above straight-sized woman, because aging sucks and who doesn't want the social approbation that comes with a small, sleek body), it helps me to remember the racist, colonialist history of fatphobia that Sabrina Strings and others have written about. And then to look at the world around me and remember exactly who wants me not to take up space. Then I feel a little better about my middle-aged dumpling of a stomach. But it scares me so much that it increasingly feels like there's only one acceptable way to be a human female, in the US at least.
Kate, fantastic column! I appreciate and admire your ability to synthesize a lot of information and then follow likely responses theoretically. Remember those tv shows a while back where drill instructors berated fat people until they starved themselves and overexercised? The immediate responses were stunning. Each one had ambitious plans for the future. Most of those people gained their weight back. Eventually, GLP-1 users will hit this point. If you re willing to eat small amounts for months, tolerate GI disturbances etc.to lose excess weight, that may be a tolerable way to live every day for some time. Many will learn of deficits in their bodies as a result of uneven nutrition over time. The GI tract is being manipulated for one result only. The fact that there are recordable short-term benefits, such as being hired or finding a partner-is only relevant as long as the individual continues to use GLP-1s. The drug has simply not been around enough years to come to some of the conclusions I've read about. In the past, new drugs would be discussed in the media with press releases from the FDA. I've noticed that with GLP-1s that over-enthusiastic PR people from the manufacturers are releasing this info about how GLP-1s MAY have some effect OVER TIME regarding reducing risks for cancer, and all kinds of other shaky and indefensible (at the moment) claims. This is a very effective way to get more customers, and for current customers to continue using this expensive and not thoroughly investigated drug. Our culture celebrates positive change stories. This phenomenon has a role in how this drug is being perceived and used. As you imply, sometimes the changes inside of an individual which "motivates" them to seek out GLP-1s is what many Americans find appealing. Everyone wants to think that if they set their mind to it, any goal is achievable. This concept is a very popular American line of thinking-the "can do" spirit. For many, though, "motivation" may feel more like desperation and punishment for not meeting societal standards. Society admires motivated people-but motivations are not always healthy or made with your overall life satisfaction in mind. If you're thinking I want to do this to get hired or to go on dates, it is ignoring other needs which are also significant, and you may feel resentment regarding your sacrifices. Not a good outlook for continued "motivation" for extrinsic validation.
However, just as with those TV shows which seemed so fabulous, unless you eat that little and exercise like that continuously, whatever you gained (or lost) cannot be maintained. It is ironic that our media and advertisements bombard us constantly with close-ups of melted cheese, giant sandwiches and fancy desserts while simultaneously promoting thinness at any cost.
As women, we know very well that people in general respond more favorably to the thinnest version of ourselves.Lots of women have experienced this. I've heard many women joke about that at the time they met their now-spouse, they were "thin enough, long enough" to "land" a husband. After pregnancy, some women's bodies have changed so much that without fancy undergarments or plastic surgery, they will never look exactly as they did earlier.
Your body changes after you age, and whatever exercise "worked" for you at 30 won't work after 40. We should get to the point where you can "relax", eat healthily and somewhat sparingly
and you "look" the best you can for a human being who has lived for 35-40 years. If you can use artificial means to maintain your 25 year old appearance, your problems go way beyond what you see in the mirror. We will all get older and our appearance will change. The "motivation" of the manufacturers of GLP-1s is not to help people feel more whole and integrated, but to appeal to that never-ending voice in your head telling you that you're not good enough the way you are.
the key: be thin. Duh. Don't need a study for that. To a lesser extent it is also true for men climbing the corporate ladder. Decades ago, when my brother-in-law was working as a lobbyist for the insurance industry, he was the highest performing lobbyist in his company but never got promoted to VP. So he went to one of those expert consultants in how to succeed, and presented his situation, and asked when he should come back for the man's assessment: The consultant said, in effect "oh no need. I can give you the answer right now. How many CEOs of Insurance companies do you know who are morbidly obese, have an unkempt beard, and wear ill-fitting clothes?" My brother in-law thanked him and left. Did he go on a diet? Shave his beard? No. He decided that he could lose all the weight and keep it off (he played football in college) but he would be miserable. So no, he quit his job and started his own company. And he tidied up his beard and got tailor-made clothes (in Hong Kong on business trips). Today, at 80 years+ and retired, he is on a GLP-1 and looks great. We all need to find what makes us happy, and tune out all the other stuff.
As a child I simply ‘noticed’ that a few kids were heftier than the norm. Yes, there were occasional “fatty, fatty 2 x 4, can’t get thro the kitchen door!” slurs, but in a small town where everyone knows each other, it didn’t make sense to alienate those whom we had ongoing connections with on so many levels … their parents owned business where we bought things, we attended the same & only school in town, and we realized these (few) overweight kids were often just as smart & personable as anyone else … or more so.
In teen years it was more obvious that ‘cute girls’ had dates/boyfriends & ‘hefty girls less so, but that dissipated with age & the changing circumstances of real life concerns such as finding a job etc.
Entering the workforce those lines of distinction (fat vs fashionable) became more blurred as we discovered that life isn’t all about appearance. The women I worked with in offices were often married & had kids … a sure-fire way to lose that 26” waistline! But this didn’t seem to alter their ability to work at the levels their experience & education warranted.
— this is natural, as it should be, but this was also small- village 1960-70’s.
Today, as we have entered the ‘Information Age’ I suspect many of us - kids esp - are subjected to the social media barrages of ‘perfection’ … perfection sells, and is increasingly part of the fat-phobia conundrum. Factor in GLP 2, botox injections & Brazilian butt lifts … suddenly any physical shapes & sizes become optional? 🙄
In some cultures, fat is sometimes even considered beautiful, almost the norm & acceptable,
— those societies function at a different level of acceptance that is based more on who you are personally, socially & sometimes economically, but I wouldn’t be surprised if those people are healthier & happier human beings.
Personally, I am fat-phobic … except with my good friend Rose, who is smart as heck, outgoing, kind, etc. I am also homophobic … except for Anderson Cooper & Pete B. etc.
— the trend there is … people I get to know & admire … so I humanize them, sympathize with their fight against fat/gender etc, and almost automatically toss out the ‘othering’ stuff. Weird how that works, hey?
Being a Christian & believing in Christ’s Second Coming … with a following gradual return to perfection under his rule vs mankind’s rule … I remind myself that all these ‘wrinkles’ of human imperfections - visible & invisible - will be done away with. That’s the long view that I need to remind myself of when feeling phobic & condemning … of even my extra 20 lbs. in my 70’s!
* Another aspect not discussed here … WHY do people become obese?
One friend says it’s her way of protecting herself from unwanted sexual advances … she was a victim of her father’s pedophilia. That may be an extreme case in point, considering also that our society has become victim to fast-franken-food & all sorts of ‘added ingredients’ that our bodies don’t know what to do with. Obesity / health is a complex issue.
It sounds like what you're saying is that you disagree with the study because your life experience doesn't agree with the results. If that's what you mean, can you please say it more clearly? And if not, can you please clarify your thoughts? There's nothing wrong with thinking (or in this case, writing) out loud but I'd like to understand your points.
I am suggesting that my views on the topic were affected by my age & environment, and that although they have *evolved I still carry some tendencies to judgementalism — despite seeing the illogic & sometimes having mixed feelings.
I sometimes need to remind myself of The “Do unto others …” maxim. in order to reset my humanity.
I appreciate your honesty.