Wednesday, June 8, 2011

Fun with anti-feminists

At left: Falls Park hydrangeas! Purty!

Big news today: In case you didn't know, the skinnier a woman is, the more money she makes. By contrast, overweight men have higher salaries than thinner men. Go on, you say, they actually required some sociological study to prove that?

Apparently so:

A new study reveals that thinner women -- and larger men -- tend to make the most money.

"Early Show" Contributing Correspondent Taryn Winter Brill reported new research from the University of Florida (pdf) finds that, for women, corporate America is just like a catwalk -- the smaller your waist -- the bigger your paycheck. But if you're a man looking to snag that corner office, don't worry about skipping dessert. Thinner men actually make less money.

According to the study, women who weighed 25 pounds less than the group norm earned about $16,000 more per year. A woman 25 pounds above the group norm earned about $14,000 less. Thinner men, on the other hand, made almost $9,000 less than their average male co-worker.
One of those things I didn't need a study to tell me. But the right-wingers and anti-feminists demand copious data for every single political assertion, therefore DEAD AIR will carefully tuck this one away for the next unpleasant occasion one of them attempts to argue that women have it made in the shade, sitting at home and madly munching on bon-bons.

Speaking of which...

Ballgame, annoying moderator at the contentious anti-feminist blog FEMINIST CRITICS, self-righteously howls in indignation when he believes he is banned by a pro-feminist men's blog. Positively bug-eyed over his ill treatment, he writes:
Still reluctant to believe that a critical-but-respectful comment had been purged, or that I had been banned on the basis of that comment, I scoured the site’s comment policy and discovered two things. One, TGMP [The Good Men Project] bars “comparisons to genocidal dictators and their brutal regimes.” Two, the site apparently has a ‘one strike and you’re out’ policy.
That's pretty funny, since Ballgame banned me for "critical-but-respectful comments"--but I guess that's somehow different.

The difference is: one standard for men, another for women.

Ballgame banned me simply for disagreeing (loudly) with him and refusing to pinky-swear that I was arguing in "good faith"--when no such promise is extracted from the dozens of offensive Men's Rights Androids that frequent his blog. In fact, these reactionaries can attack feminists with gusto and it's all regarded as hunky-dory by Ballgame. Feminists, however, can not attack back in the same disrepectful tone.

So now Ballgame's karma catches up with him. (giggle)

Oh wait... not to worry, after howling and (most especially) reminding the guys at TGMP that he is an important blogger, they have unbanned him. But of course! Boys will be boys, bros before hos. Etc.

And BTW, exactly WHAT is Ballgame disagreeing with at TGMP? His blog post title says it all: Questioning Sexual slavery. He demands DATA, because simply passing all those female junkies in the red light district and watching Frontline isn't enough for him. (Amnesty International, Shamnesty International!) He is skeptical. Skeptical of what? Women's words, of course.

Might this be an example of "bad faith"? Running a blog called "Feminist Critics" that you pointedly ban feminists from and then writing posts demanding readable DATA before you concede that sexual slavery exists? Uh-huh.

Bad faith = anti-feminism, in its entirety.


JoJo said...

Very pretty hydrangeas! I'm not surprised that thin women make more than overweight ones do. Just another kick in the pants to this weight-phobic country. I'm so glad that my new love finds me incredibly sexy, curves and all.

SnowdropExplodes said...

Wait - bigger dudes make more money? I'm bigger than most men, so WHERE'S MY SHARE!!?? **strangled wail**

Re: Ballgame - I love it when people get their words and actions turned around on them.

SnowdropExplodes said...

Okay, I've now read through the PDF file linked in the CBS report, and it doesn't mention weight at all. That paper says that attractiveness was measured by showing photos of their participants to a group of people and asking them to rate how attractive the participants were. (It looks as though CBS simply linked the wrong file).

A quick google discovered that this might be the correct file (for any of your readers who might want to follow it up):

DaisyDeadhead said...

SNE--thank you!! I noticed it was weird, but went ahead and linked what CBS linked, since I was quoting verbatim. (Also, the file is from 2009, which thoroughly confused me!) Thanks for the link, kiss kiss kiss.

BTW Snowdrop, from what I hear, Europe is more fatphobic than the US. Is that true? That may be why you ain't getting your due salary, LOL. Also, another TV report on the study said once a man is obese, his weight becomes a liability. (Note: I dunno if you are obese or not, just reporting what the TV person was saying!) But for women, the discrimination starts at 15 lbs overweight. Yeesh!

SnowdropExplodes said...

The actual paper shows that as weight increases, for women the trend is always downwards (although the lost income per lb is lower the higher your weight), but for men the direction changes once you get a few lbs over the average weight, meaning that you start to lose income as a man if you become overweight. However, the decrease per each extra lb above the average was always less than the decrease per each extra lb below average. They started with a study in Germany that showed similar results, so I guess it isn't limited to the US.

As for comparative fatphobia, I couldn't really say. I think possibly we are less fatphobic (though not by much) with regards to women, but possibly a bit more with men, I don't know though.

(Word verification: "plentive")

website coder said...

Really this is pretty.. But too funny..

Domain services said...

Great reading i ’ve read something so true in a long time Keep up it Register domain in india