There’s a little piece in the March Atlantic Magazine regarding a U.S. Bureau of Labor study showing that overweight women have and are facing increased employment discrimination. Over the past 25 years, men and women of all ages and races have been getting heavier, and at the same time the discrimination against overweight women, in terms of salary differences, seems also to be increasing.
What also captured my eye is a bar chart that went with the article (using data from the study). This chart purports to show that between 1981 and 2000, the percentage of white working-age women who are either overweight or obese rose from 12.6 percent to 50.4 percent. I.e., from one-in-eight to one-in-two. If that is true, it is quite astonishing. But I didn’t think it was accurate. To check, I took a look at a report called “Health, United States, 2007”, published by the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services. Table 74 of that report shows that in the 1976-1980 period, 38.7% of white women age 20 to 74 were overweight or obese; in the 2000-2004 period, this went up to 61.4%. That’s still a huge jump, and shows the current situation to be even worse than the Atlantic numbers (6 in 10 overweight versus 5 in 10). But it’s still not a fat revolution, as the study stats would imply.
There certainly is a health crisis lurking behind all of this, as excess weight correlates with an increased risk of diabetes, cardiovascular conditions and muscular-skeletal problems, from what I’ve read (and what I’ve seen in my own family). From an aesthetic point of view, I also find this regrettable. Every guy has his tastes in women; some guys like the Rubenesque figure and probably welcome the trend. But I myself like the tall thin type best – that is, from the shallow perspective of appearance. I’m mature enough to know that true human worth goes way beyond looks; still, I’m still entitled to what I find most immediately pleasing regarding body appearances. A little bit of ‘girlwatching’ doesn’t hurt anyone.
Sticking with the looks-only perspective, it’s no secret that most guys find women in their 20’s and early 30’s to be the most aesthetically pleasing. That’s just nature at work; most men have enough brainpower to realize that true friendships and relationships depend upon much more than surface appearances. But nevertheless, even the most enlightened guy can Platonically admire what nature does with reproduction-age females. So, perhaps the most disturbing statistical trend for we girlwatchers is what has happened to the 20-34 year old cohort of females; in the 1960-1962 period, only 21.2% of such women were overweight or obese; in the 2000-2004 period, that number went to 51.6%. My goodness, McDonalds and Hagen-Daz and ADM (with all of that unhealthy corn syrup they crank out) are trying to kill off girlwatching in America!
Just to show that I’m not being totally chauvinistic here, I’ll leave behind a link to an article that I just read on the New York Magazine web site regarding the differences between Obama and Hilary. Actually, I’ll link to the last page of that article, which sums things up very nicely. To paraphrase it, Hilary is the practical choice, the choice which assumes that politics in Washington and the world at large are nasty and are going to stay nasty. Obama reflects the assumption that through American good will and idealism, the world of nations and the world of politics can become kinder and gentler. Right now, the Obama point of view seems to be winning, and in a lot of ways, that’s a good thing. But I just don’t think that the world is ready for Obama’s paradigm; or, said another way, Obama is just not ready for the real world’s paradigm. His speeches sound like wishful thinking to me. But McCain and the GOP are just too pessimistic about the human race. I still think that Hilary, however uninspiring politically (and not much from the girlwatching perspective either), is the right mix, the best you can do. I still hope she can pull out of her tailspin.
Jim,
I am not so much concerned with the obesity issue. My fascination is with a nation that has so much surplus food it has to PAY farmers NOT to plant crops. (Not sure if that is still going on, but it did for quite a while there. Perhaps the conglomerate farms are keeping what they do NOT plant very quiet; I find myself wondering.) So in a nation that has mega-surpluses of food, not only are there some people who are eating too much of it, there are also plenty of people who are actually NOT eating–the whole obsession with being thin (not eating) and the obsession with eating too much and exercising it off.
I’m also fascinated by the conundrum–in poor countries being “fat” is a sign, not of obesity but of being rich: I’ve got enough money that I can actually be fat! However, in a country that has waaaaay too much food for its population, the obsession is with being THIN! Remarkably, in a nation with too much food, the I-do-NOT-eat-food syndrome is a real problem among some people. Thus, all the anorexia/bulemia problems. But this problem is not limited only to females. To go from the general to the singular specific: I once heard a man say to his wife (he was a neighbor), “I’m soooooo hungry, but I don’t want to eat much; I don’t want to get fat.”
Then too there is the just-plain obsession with food–what to eat, where to eat, special kinds of food, this and that. (I admit I tend to be the open-a-can-of-soup type of individual and let it go at that.) Further evidence of the obsession with food is an entire cable channel devoted to food. Again, in a nation where there is food everywhere, so to speak, one can get “picky” about what to eat. In poor nations where there is nothing to eat, almost any food is a feast! What a conundrum.
And as regards the Clinton/Obama issue: Having been most idealistic in my young years, thinking that, of course, I had to be right because my ideals were so noble, I can to a certain extent understand the “young folks” of today and their naive acceptance of what Clinton calls “rhetoric” without any specifics.
I’m torn between realizing that I didn’t have a clue at all of the troubles and problems that would arise because of my idealistic tendencies in my younger years and simply saying, well, the young people today (including Obama) will have to learn like I did–the hard way.
I think Clinton is correct: Obama has NOT been tested. The only time he received any criticism from Clinton he went into a pout for a few weeks. Pouting will not win the presidency–nor will it defeat any serious campaign of “testing” the Republicans may put forth. Further, I think that Obama may have clay feet that have not yet been exposed–if what has been hinted at in Chicago politics proves to be but the tip of an iceberg. (I say this from having seen too many Chicago politicians decry the injustice of being “accused”, denying for years, and then ending up in the Federal slammer. (How many Illinois governors have been there?–with one there now.) I wonder when the Republicans decide to dig into such things about Obama what they will find and how everything will shake down. Perhaps Obama has not been in politics long enough to have been participating in hanky panky, but…. I find myself wondering, that’s all.
And Clinton is right: Much of what has been thrown at her has been discredited, and she has 15 or 16 years of experience in that regard. She is also right that “it will happen” with Obama. As I said: Obama, when Clinton brought up a sentence or two about what may prove to be his clay feet, went into a pout for some weeks.
Young people, however, do not have “hard-eyed realism.” And the writer of the NY Mag article is right: Obama could be the next Kennedy or the next Jimmy Carter.
Then again, I have never really understood the almost “saintly” regard the Republicans have of Reagan. When he was voted in the second time, I simply shook my head in dismay. I did not think he did that much good f
Comment by Anonymous — February 13, 2008 @ 2:53 pm
Jim,
I am not so much concerned with the obesity issue. My fascination is with a nation that has so much surplus food it has to PAY farmers NOT to plant crops. (Not sure if that is still going on, but it did for quite a while there. Perhaps the conglomerate farms are keeping what they do NOT plant very quiet; I find myself wondering.) So in a nation that has mega-surpluses of food, not only are there some people who are eating too much of it, there are also plenty of people who are actually NOT eating–the whole obsession with being thin (not eating) and the obsession with eating too much and exercising it off.
I’m also fascinated by the conundrum–in poor countries being “fat” is a sign, not of obesity but of being rich: I’ve got enough money that I can actually be fat! However, in a country that has waaaaay too much food for its population, the obsession is with being THIN! Remarkably, in a nation with too much food, the I-do-NOT-eat-food syndrome is a real problem among some people. Thus, all the anorexia/bulemia problems. But this problem is not limited only to females. To go from the general to the singular specific: I once heard a man say to his wife (he was a neighbor), “I’m soooooo hungry, but I don’t want to eat much; I don’t want to get fat.”
Then too there is the just-plain obsession with food–what to eat, where to eat, special kinds of food, this and that. (I admit I tend to be the open-a-can-of-soup type of individual and let it go at that.) Further evidence of the obsession with food is an entire cable channel devoted to food. Again, in a nation where there is food everywhere, so to speak, one can get “picky” about what to eat. In poor nations where there is nothing to eat, almost any food is a feast! What a conundrum.
And as regards the Clinton/Obama issue: Having been most idealistic in my young years, thinking that, of course, I had to be right because my ideals were so noble, I can to a certain extent understand the “young folks” of today and their naive acceptance of what Clinton calls “rhetoric” without any specifics.
I’m torn between realizing that I didn’t have a clue at all of the troubles and problems that would arise because of my idealistic tendencies in my younger years and simply saying, well, the young people today (including Obama) will have to learn like I did–the hard way.
I think Clinton is correct: Obama has NOT been tested. The only time he received any criticism from Clinton he went into a pout for a few weeks. Pouting will not win the presidency–nor will it defeat any serious campaign of “testing” the Republicans may put forth. Further, I think that Obama may have clay feet that have not yet been exposed–if what has been hinted at in Chicago politics proves to be but the tip of an iceberg. (I say this from having seen too many Chicago politicians decry the injustice of being “accused”, denying for years, and then ending up in the Federal slammer. (How many Illinois governors have been there?–with one there now.) I wonder when the Republicans decide to dig into such things about Obama what they will find and how everything will shake down. Perhaps Obama has not been in politics long enough to have been participating in hanky panky, but…. I find myself wondering, that’s all.
And Clinton is right: Much of what has been thrown at her has been discredited, and she has 15 or 16 years of experience in that regard. She is also right that “it will happen” with Obama. As I said: Obama, when Clinton brought up a sentence or two about what may prove to be his clay feet, went into a pout for some weeks.
Young people, however, do not have “hard-eyed realism.” And the writer of the NY Mag article is right: Obama could be the next Kennedy or the next Jimmy Carter.
Then again, I have never really understood the almost “saintly” regard the Republicans have of Reagan. When he was voted in the second time, I simply shook my head in dismay. I did not think he did that much good for the nation. E.g., the whole mess with air traffic controllers goes back to Reagan’s union busting. I don’t think he did much for the economy.
Then too: I’ve just finished reading a Newsweek article on the conservative backlash against McCain. I came away dismayed by the conservatives hiding behind the “God people” aspect of who they might be; it seems this group is capable of being filled with vituperation and nastiness. It’s the nastiness aspect of the conservatives that finally seems to be coming out. I got the impression that they are like kids: If I can’t have my way, I’ll stamp my feet (or hold my breath) until I do. But people like Limbaugh (sp?), and Coulter especially–I find myself dismayed by how vicious they can be–and for what? Just because they might not get their way? Good grief!
In regard to another aspect of who will be the Dem candidate: If the convention goes to a brokered convention, then all the hype of how important all the primary votes are/were, is for naught. If that situation eventually comes to pass, I will really become cynical in regard to voting in the first place. The last election was stolen out right; if this primary goes to a brokered convention, I’m going to find myself wondering why I make the effort to vote.
MCS
Comment by Anonymous — February 13, 2008 @ 2:53 pm
Jim,
I am not so much concerned with the obesity issue. My fascination is with a nation that has so much surplus food it has to PAY farmers NOT to plant crops. (Not sure if that is still going on, but it did for quite a while there. Perhaps the conglomerate farms are keeping what they do NOT plant very quiet; I find myself wondering.) So in a nation that has mega-surpluses of food, not only are there some people who are eating too much of it, there are also plenty of people who are actually NOT eating–the whole obsession with being thin (not eating) and the obsession with eating too much and exercising it off.
I’m also fascinated by the conundrum–in poor countries being “fat” is a sign, not of obesity but of being rich: I’ve got enough money that I can actually be fat! However, in a country that has waaaaay too much food for its population, the obsession is with being THIN! Remarkably, in a nation with too much food, the I-do-NOT-eat-food syndrome is a real problem among some people. Thus, all the anorexia/bulemia problems. But this problem is not limited only to females. To go from the general to the singular specific: I once heard a man say to his wife (he was a neighbor), “I’m soooooo hungry, but I don’t want to eat much; I don’t want to get fat.”
Then too there is the just-plain obsession with food–what to eat, where to eat, special kinds of food, this and that. (I admit I tend to be the open-a-can-of-soup type of individual and let it go at that.) Further evidence of the obsession with food is an entire cable channel devoted to food. Again, in a nation where there is food everywhere, so to speak, one can get “picky” about what to eat. In poor nations where there is nothing to eat, almost any food is a feast! What a conundrum.
And as regards the Clinton/Obama issue: Having been most idealistic in my young years, thinking that, of course, I had to be right because my ideals were so noble, I can to a certain extent understand the “young folks” of today and their naive acceptance of what Clinton calls “rhetoric” without any specifics.
I’m torn between realizing that I didn’t have a clue at all of the troubles and problems that would arise because of my idealistic tendencies in my younger years and simply saying, well, the young people today (including Obama) will have to learn like I did–the hard way.
I think Clinton is correct: Obama has NOT been tested. The only time he received any criticism from Clinton he went into a pout for a few weeks. Pouting will not win the presidency–nor will it defeat any serious campaign of “testing” the Republicans may put forth. Further, I think that Obama may have clay feet that have not yet been exposed–if what has been hinted at in Chicago politics proves to be but the tip of an iceberg. (I say this from having seen too many Chicago politicians decry the injustice of being “accused”, denying for years, and then ending up in the Federal slammer. (How many Illinois governors have been there?–with one there now.) I wonder when the Republicans decide to dig into such things about Obama what they will find and how everything will shake down. Perhaps Obama has not been in politics long enough to have been participating in hanky panky, but…. I find myself wondering, that’s all.
And Clinton is right: Much of what has been thrown at her has been discredited, and she has 15 or 16 years of experience in that regard. She is also right that “it will happen” with Obama. As I said: Obama, when Clinton brought up a sentence or two about what may prove to be his clay feet, went into a pout for some weeks.
Young people, however, do not have “hard-eyed realism.” And the writer of the NY Mag article is right: Obama could be the next Kennedy or the next Jimmy Carter.
Then again, I have never really understood the almost “saintly” regard the Republicans have of Reagan. When he was voted in the second time, I simply shook my head in dismay. I did not think he did that much good f
Comment by Anonymous — February 13, 2008 @ 2:53 pm