Chronicles of the past credit Wallis Simpson with a phrase that would make more than one turn up their nose today, according to which a woman “can never be too rich or too thin.” Considering that the person in question married no less than a king and strove all her life for a state of thinness that would have been almost ascetic, we cannot doubt that she applied this harsh criterion primarily to herself. These were other times, of course, and today such words will be appreciated at least in spite of new bodily positive sensitivity, but with his thin frame (and his undoubted ambition) Wallis could claim a brilliant career at the top of some American company. Especially in those realities (and there are many of them), where the main criterion for hiring women is thinness versus equally fit, but overweight candidates.
To highlight this bias, which is anything but unconscious, is the articleEconomist which in the Christmas issue – the period of the year when the balance tilts most dangerously upwards – is titled The economics of thinness (the economics of thinness) writes: “It is economically beneficial for ambitious women to go out of their way to be thin.”. Strong words and mostly not too far from the words of the failed queen consort, with the difference that in this case it is not a flirty witticism, but a statement backed up by real data and evidence. “Fiction according to that smart and ambitious women who can assess their worth in the labor market based on their intelligence or education should not pay attention to their figure, it is difficult to argue after studying the data on how their weight interacts with their salary or income. the newspaper writes unequivocally, emphasizing the most obvious and socially acceptable form of discrimination: the phobia of fat.
Let it be said fat phobia or fat shaming”fear and contempt for fat people, which manifests itself on several levels, from comments – unwanted – offensive and often harsh and inappropriate, to real discrimination at the social level, which leads to the punishment and exclusion of overweight people. Penalty in terms of Job Approval leads to a 10% reduction in the income of overweight women, according to various studies conducted in America, the UK, Canada and Denmark, and the situation has only worsened over the years. While great strides have been made on the issue of diversity and inclusiveness, and language has received more attention and awareness, stigma against overweight people has doubled between 1980 and 2000.. An even more serious side of the matter is that for men this double criterion does not apply. As if women are required not only preparedness and professionalism, but also aesthetic impeccability, according to the canons, which, unfortunately, we are well aware of and from which we try in vain to free ourselves every day.
If, on the one hand, we are witnessing an ever-increasing normalization of physical imperfections, which celebrities and influencers contributed a lot by posting photos with cellulite, acne, stretch marks, regrown areas of different levels, then, on the other hand, we continue to be inundated with images and advertising, where the form is a substance because it completely replaces it, fueling not only the idea that being thin at all costs is good for health, but also that obesity is associated solely with a bodily problem that can be solved simply by eating less, with constant binge drinking can hide very deep psychological discomfort. It is useless to stigmatize, it is harmful to identify a person with his body, it is deeply unfair to discriminate him by weight.
Source: Elle