The Costs of Being Overweight

In class readings and discussions we’ve talked a lot about femininity and how beauty can lead to power and success in our culture (see Eki’s post on the power of an Image). An example from our readings comes from the article First Impressions of Sarah Palin: Pitt Bulls, Politics, Gender Performance, and a Discursive Media where Palin’s attractiveness as a candidate is due in part to her “physical traits” and “how great she looks” (Harp, Loke & Bachmann 301). The article The Gendered Face of Latinidad examined how Latina women go through a “crossover process” where women’s trek towards fame includes “blonding the hair, shedding some weight” (Valdivia 62). But in our American culture where body image and being at the “perfect” weight is such a priority, our class discussion hasn't touched that much upon prejudices against people based on weight.  I began to wonder how overweight people were discriminated against in our culture, and I came across a two interesting articles that I would like to share.

The article ExtraWeight, Higher Costs explains that being overweight (even just 30-40 lbs overweight) costs “tens of thousands of dollars over a lifetime” and is particularly costly for women. From the article:

Heavy people do not spend more than normal-size people on food, but their life insurance premiums are two to four times as large. They can expect higher medical expenses, and they tend to make less money and accumulate less wealth in their shortened lifetimes. They can have a harder time being hired, and then a harder time winning plum assignments and promotions.

I suppose it makes sense to me that medical costs would be higher for someone that was overweight, and even that they might have shorter lifespans if they are overweight. But I guess I was shocked at the discrimination towards money that individuals, particularly women, received in the work place for being overweight. See this astonishing fact:

The typical female baby boomer, he said, earned $313.70 less annually for every one-point increase in her B.M.I., while the typical male earned $161.30 less for every point.

While in theory it seems ridiculous that someone could be discriminated against in the workplace for their weight, in reality there are actually a number of professions where body type and size is considered a part of the job requirements. Take a look Lauren Warnecke’s story, I Was a Fat Ballerina. Lauren struggled with an eating disorder throughout her experience as a professional ballerina, and eventually was fired for "not looking good in the costume."  

The wording in the article isn't just coincidence, and brought me back to our discussion of the “It’s a Culture Not a Costume” campaign. It just makes me wonder… is being thin, svelte, blonde, tall, etc the “costume” that Americans need to conform to in our culture in order to be successful? 

The Controversy surrounding the Yahoo! ban on Telecommuting

Article for Mayer’s Telecommuting Ban:

http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/02/marissa-mayers-job-is-to-be-ceo-not-to-make-life-easier-for-working-moms/273584/

Article against Mayer’s Telecommuting Ban: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/02/marissa-mayer-is-wrong-working-from-home-can-make-you-more-productive/273482/

The two articles linked above discuss the recent ban by Yahoo! CEO Marissa Mayer which forbids employees to work from home and requires them to come in to the office. 

The first article, which is for the ban, discusses the backlash against Marissa Mayer’s decision and its labeling as “anti-family” policy. The author discusses how many people are viewing this decision in the context that the CEO is a woman, and how some people may be thinking, “how on earth could the first pregnant CEO, with a young baby and a nursery in her office, deny her employees the ability to work with their children nearby?” The CEO as well as some current and former employees of Yahoo! agree with this decision, saying that many people have abused the system and it is in the best interest of the company to enact this policy and re-do the business culture to ensure its up-most efficiency. The article also supports the importance of actual physical presence in the workplace is essential, rather than relying on technology, stating that “connecting directly with each other face to face is energizing and mobilizing in ways that asynchronous communication cannot match”.

The second article, which is against the ban, discusses how telecommuting makes some workers much more effective than working in the office. The author states that there is no statistical evidence showing that telecommuting is any less effective than working in the office. They also believe that, although perhaps less telecommuting could help Yahoo!, there shouldn’t be a corporate policy to forbid it because it is more effective for some workers, sometimes employees like to “work from home for a change”, and it could hinder those workers ability to put forth their best effort at work. Interestingly, the author does not mention how the issue of gender plays into this controversy nor do they discuss much the implications of technology on human interaction.

This controversy and the discussion surrounding it highlight issues of gender in the workplace as well as how technology has affected how we work and interact. First, because the CEO is a woman, I wonder if there would be the same backlash against the ban if she were a man. Should her gender be considered when discussing this issue? Is it/why is it shocking that a woman would choose to enact a policy which isn’t “family-friendly”?

Second, this issue touches upon how technology has influenced how we live and work, and what role it has in determining how we operate in the workplace. This goes back to ideas we talked about in class regarding technology and communication. Is physical presence still important in today’s working and technology age, or can we rely on technology? Is an email as effective as a face-to-face meeting? Do workers need to be together in the same place to be more efficient and effective as a company? Do you agree with the statement that "We need to be one Yahoo!, and that starts with physically being together"? Finally, do you agree with authors Smith-Pfister and Soliz’s statement in their article “(Re)conceptualisizing Intercultural Communication in a Networked Society” that “technological advancements in digitally networked media and the exponential growth in the public’s understanding and use of these media are leading to more opportunities for interaction” (p. 248)?

No African-American NFL Coaches Hired in 2013

This may or may not surprise you, but I don’t typically listen to sports radio.  But the other day I was fortuitously in the car with my brother and sister-in-law (both diehard Detroit Lions fans) listening to 104.3 The Fan’s The Drive with Big Al and D-Mac who were discussing the firing and rehiring of NFL coaches.  The two sports casters basically argued that after getting fired, white coaches get rehired at a higher percentage rate than black coaches, even if those white coaches have a poor coaching record.  Granted, a lot of what these guys say is based on their personal opinions, so I decided to look into this a little bit more on my own. 

I found this brief article on the official NFL website where I learned that, "None of the eight new NFL head coaches is African-American. The number of African-American head coaches in the NFL will drop from five to three in 2012 after Lovie Smith and Romeo Crennel lost their jobs."

So, as of January 5, 2013, there are only 3 African-American coaches out of 32 NFL teams:

1. Marvin Lewis, Cincinnati Bengals (entering 11th season) 
2. Mike Tomlin, Pittsburgh Steelers (entering seventh season) 
3. Leslie Frazier, Minnesota Vikings (entering third season)

Using a social sciences perspective, the data shows that NFL players are predominantly African-American (here are some statistics from the past 2 decades), but those in higher up positions are predominantly white.  Looking at this through a critical standpoint, one can argue that historical factors of a racial hierarchy in the United States has affected the societal structure in today's National Football League.  This 'historically-determined differential power positioning' (R.T. Halualani et al.'Critical' Junctures in Intercultural Communication Studies: A Review) coupled with the notion that we're living in a colorblind society has led many fans to argue "that we live in a post-racial world", but the above-mentioned statistics prove otherwise.

On top of this I learned about the Rooney Rule in which franchises must interview at least one minority candidate when filling a head coach position.  However, there is speculation that teams bring in a token minority to interview with no intention of actually considering him for the position. If you’re interested, here’s another quick  piece on the situation.

Unfortunately I couldn’t track down the original Fan podcast, but if anyone can find it, it’s an interesting listen.