lbo-talk-digest V1 #4825

[Leslilake1 at aol.com]

Sure, fat's a class issue.  I did some research on this in school, and while 
I don't remember where I got the info, my general recollection is that it was 
especially true for women:  the richer, the thinner and the poorer, the 
fatter.  For men, it was a little more ambiguous, i.e. the statistical 
pattern wasn't as clear-cut.  But I'd guess it is becoming more clear-cut for 
men over time.  One of the reasons I think so is the way men's magazines have 
increasingly come to mirror women's magazines over time - increasingly 
focused on image management, household and personal goods that can be bought 
to create a desired image, and the improvement of the body through diet, 
exercise, toiletries, etc.  

I also remember that it was not ever thus; it used to be (seems like the 
transition was somewhere between 1940's - 1970's) that the poor tended to be 
thinner and the rich fatter - again, with women being more the exemplary 
case.  

Les

In a message dated 01-09-07 14:35:50 EDT, you write:

<< ate: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 14:03:48 -0400

 From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>

 Subject: Re: men and women

 

 Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:

 

 >What's interesting (if not surprising) is that while Americans, male 

 >or female, are on the average among the fattest of the world, 

 >American actors in Hollywood movies now display the best toned 

 >bodies of all movies of the world.

 

 Fat is a class issue. I've heard it said - and though I haven't 

 factchecked this, it sounds entirely right from what I've seen - that 

 there isn't a single fat CEO of a Fortune 500 company. And contrast 

 slender marathon runner Robert Rubin with the 300-lb steak and wine 

 for breakfast J.P. Morgan. Urban yuppies of both sexes are generally 

 fit; plumpies are rare.

 

 Doug >>