Discrimination is bad for your health – and your kids too

Think about the last time you left the house. Did strangers on the street acknowledge your presence with a smile or avert their glance? Chances are that the answer depended on your age, gender and, of course, your race.

Discrimination is bad for your health – and your kids too

There is no shortage of evidence that racism persists. Despite the fact that science has demonstrated that racial groups are defined by society rather than biology, an individual’s experience from the moment they are born is colored by the color of their skin.

Recently, high-profile incidents have focused attention on how people can be treated differently by authority figures, such as police officers, because of their race. However the majority of discrimination experiences are much more subtle.

In fact, subtle bias may actually be more mentally damaging than overt bias. This is because overt bias can be more easily dismissed as ignorant. However subtle bias is able to “get under the skin” to influence physical health.

Racism affects physical health

In recent years, there has been a growing amount of research highlighting the effects of racial discrimination on not only mental health but also physical health. Discrimination may influence physical health through changes in stress physiology functioning.

As an example, in African-Americans experiencing racism has been associated with higher evening cortisol levels, which are considered unhealthy. Similarly, a study among Hispanic youth found that racism experience was associated with higher cortisol levels across the day.

Cortisol and other hormones in the stress physiology system are important for maintaining immune, reproductive and cardiovascular health. Therefore changes in this system as a result of discrimination experience can adversely affect everything from your body’s ability to fight infection to your ability to become pregnant.

The quantity of evidence supporting the relationship between discrimination and physical health is staggering. And yet discrimination may have even greater impacts than was initially recognized.

Racism can affect health across generations

It is increasingly accepted that a woman’s mental and physical health in pregnancy influences her baby. Maternal health may influence offspring through exposure to hormones in pregnancy.

For example, women with high stress hormones give birth to infants with lower birth weight. Since being born small increases risk for developing poor health in adulthood, factors impacting maternal stress hormones in pregnancy could also affect long term offspring health.

While racial discrimination has well known impacts on adult health, less research has focused on the potential for racial discrimination to influence health in the next generation. However the studies that have been done suggest that there can be very important effects.

For example, racial discrimination has been associated with lower birth weight. One particularly interesting study, reported a decrease in birth weight among children of California women with Arab sounding names in the year following 9/11. The author attributed this finding to an increase in racial discrimination experience among these women.

I recently published an article that evaluated whether racial discrimination influences maternal and offspring stress physiology among a socioeconomically and ethnically diverse sample of women from Auckland, New Zealand. Auckland is an interesting cultural context to explore the effects of discrimination on health because it is very ethnically diverse; 39% of all residents were born overseas.

I tracked women who were in the late stages of their pregnancy. What I found was that women who experienced discrimination had higher evening stress hormone levels in late pregnancy, consistent with a pattern of chronic stress.

When I followed up their infants at six weeks of age, I found that their children had elevated stress response to vaccination. These findings suggest that experience of racial discrimination may actually have biological impacts lasting across generations.

What do we do about it?

Understanding the link between discrimination experience and poor health is an important first step towards raising awareness of this issue. But something obviously needs to be done in order to improve the health and well being of all members of society. Continuing to identify and call out the institutional and interpersonal experiences of discrimination is a necessary first step.

Interventions aimed at increasing social support and ethnic identity will likely increase resilience to discrimination experience. Efforts should not focus solely on these “buffering” interventions, however, as this effectively translates into placing responsibility on the victim rather than on the perpetrators of discrimination.

Tools, such as the implicit bias test, exist to help people identify their own biases that they may be unaware of. Recognizing the potential for subtle bias is necessary before anything can be done to address it.

Story by Zaneta Thayer

Repost from The Conversation US

Read more at Discrimination related news at:

Australian Workplace and Discrimination Representatives
Non Lawyer Workplace Representatives
Hotline No. 1800 333 666
Website: www.awdr.com.au

The cycle of anti-Muslim discrimination in France is likely to worsen

Muslims in France and the French host population are locked in a discriminatory equilibrium. This is the conclusion, summarized in our soon-to-be published book, of a six-year research program that investigates whether and why Muslims are discriminated against in France.

Paris Mosque rector Dalil Boubakeur, French political, religious and personalites take part in a solidarity march (Marche Republicaine) in the streets of Paris

In 2009, we organized behavioral games in Paris in which “rooted” French (French with no recent immigrant background) interacted with Muslim and Christian immigrants. With the exception of their religion, these Muslim and Christian immigrants were similar. They hail from the same two ethnic groups and the same socio-economic class in Senegal and migrated to France at the same time (the 1970s) and for the same economic reasons.

Our behavioral games allowed us to compare the level of trust and altruism that rooted French exhibit toward Muslim immigrants and their Christian counterparts by having them play simultaneously a trust game and a dictator game.
The research shows basic bias against Muslims

Our results show that, while the rooted French do not distrust Muslims any more than Christians, they are less altruistic toward Muslims.

Put differently, rooted French discriminate in a “non rational” manner against Muslims. When given a common task, they are less cooperative toward Muslims (particularly those with recognizably Muslim names) even when they do not expect any particular hostility from the Muslims with whom they interact.

Moreover, while increasing the proportion of Muslims in French society might reduce such prejudice due to increased opportunity for interaction, our results suggest the opposite.

When we increased the proportion of Muslims in our game environment there were measurable signs that the discriminatory attitudes of the rooted French were heightened. The expected increase of the Muslim population in France (from 7.5% in 2010 to 10.3% in 2030), our research suggests, will not improve anti-Muslim prejudice, other factors remaining constant.
Discrimination evident in the workplace

The anti-Muslim discrimination we reveal is not confined to the lab.

We accompanied our behavioral games with a correspondence test comparing responses to a Senegalese Christian (Marie Diouf) and to a Senegalese Muslim (Khadija Diouf) job applicant who submitted the exact same CVs, with two differences only: one job and one volunteer experience.

One of Khadija’s past positions was with Secours Islamique (Islamic Relief) and one of Marie’s was with Secours Catholique (Catholic relief). Also, Khadija did voluntary work for the Scouts Musulmans de France, whereas Marie did the same for the comparable Catholic organization, Scouts et Guides de France.

Our findings reveal that a job applicant in France is 2.5 times less likely to receive a job interview callback when she is perceived as Muslim instead of Christian by the employer.
What about religious norms?

Is there a factual basis for the sense of cultural threat rooted French experience when interacting with Muslims?

In his research, Berkeley political scientist Steven Fish shows that the average Muslim respondent is more religious than the average Christian respondent. The average Muslim score (on a 1 to 10 scale where 1 means that God has the least importance in one’s life and 10 means that it has the greatest importance) is 9.5. For the average Christian it is 8.1.

Our own survey, conducted in France among the group of Senegalese Christian and Muslim immigrants mentioned above, confirms that Muslims are distinctive from their Christian counterparts in terms of religiosity. Their mean score on the 1 to 10 scale is 9.0 compared with 7.6 for their Christian counterparts and 3.1 for the average rooted French respondent.

But Muslims are distinctive in other ways also.
What about women?

Steven Fish’s work showed that Muslims are more likely to agree that “a university education is more important for a boy than for a girl,“ to think that “when jobs are scarce, men should have more rights to a job than women” and to support the idea that “men make better political leaders than women do.”

Our research confirms that Muslim immigrants in France differ from their Christian counterparts in gender attitudes. Senegalese Christian immigrants and rooted French show greater altruism toward their female game partners than toward their male ones but the opposite is true for Muslims: they are more generous toward men than women.

Muslims in France not only attach more importance to religion than do the average French, but they also support more conservative views and behaviors towards women.

They are perceived by the French host population as a challenge to France’s century-long commitment to the separation of church and state (what the French call laïcité) and its 50-year struggle for gender equality.

But this sense of a cultural threat is not rational. As French political scientists Sylvain Brouard and Vincent Tiberj have shown, the average Muslim’s higher level of religiosity has nothing to do with the Islamist position that religious principles should be the foundation of governance. Nor do their more traditional views on gender roles call for the repression of women.
Discrimination leads Muslim community to withdraw further

Yet, this sense of threat felt by the so-called rooted French feeds irrational anti-Muslim behavior. And this behavior, in turn, encourages Muslims to withdraw from French society.

Our survey results clearly indicate that Muslim immigrants detect more hostility in France toward them than do their Christian counterparts. Consequently, they have few incentives to abandon their own cultural norms to identify more closely with French culture and society. This withdrawal further feeds anti-Muslim discrimination in France.

Distressingly, the Charlie Hebdo shooting and the attack on a kosher supermarket can only reinforce this vicious cycle of discrimination.

The attack by a few has strengthened the misguided belief that Muslims as a whole constitute a major threat to France.

To break this cycle, actions must be taken to increase public awareness that “being a Muslim” is not equivalent to “being a Jihadist.“ Mobilizing the Muslim population in France to coalesce at least around the “I am neither Koachi nor Coulibaly” slogan if not around “I am Charlie” would also help unravel France’s worrisome discriminatory trap.

Repost from The Conversation US

Read more at:
Australian Workplace and Discrimination Representatives
Non Lawyer Workplace Representatives
Hotline No. 1800 333 666
Website: www.awdr.com.au

O-level generation ‘face age discrimination’

The Government’s ‘older workers tsar’ suggests holders of the pre-1988 secondary school qualification should consider deleting them from their CVs and substituting GCSEs instead

O-level generation 'face age discrimination'

Older job applicants are being advised to disguise O-levels on their CV because they may suffer age discrimination for holding old-style qualifications.

Ros Altmann, the government’s tsar for older workers, said there were cases of older people altering their job applications after suffering “constant rejection”.

O-levels, widely regarded as the gold standard in secondary level qualifications, were scrapped in 1987 and replaced with GCSEs the following year, meaning the youngest O-level cohort is now 43 or 44.

Holders of the predominantly examination-based O-levels have remained untainted by suggestions of grade inflation which have so badly damaged the reputation of GCSEs.

But the O-level generation is now finding themselves at a disadvantage as they enter their mid-forties.

“There are ‘CV skills’ courses which suggest to older people looking for jobs that they call their O-levels GCSEs [because] O-levels equals ‘old’,” Miss Altmann told the Sunday Times.

“I don’t condone telling outright lies, of course, but if you are having to face this kind of unfairness then maybe one needs to look to play the game.

“This generation will want to be scrupulously honest and if they are asked questions wouldn’t dream of missing information out deliberately. This honesty counts against them.”

Miss Altmann is an economist and pensions expert who was made the Coalition’s business champion for older workers in July last year to boost the number of over-50s in work.

She said many employers would weed out applications from older people even though they are not allowed to demand an applicant’s date of birth.

However, earlier career histories and the date or type of qualifications listed on a CV provided an easy way for some employers to calculate an applicant’s age.

Older applicants facing age discrimination have been advised to include modern technological aspects to their CVs such as file-sharing links and video clips in a bid to disguise their true age.

News Courtesy: telegraph.co.uk

Read more Discrimination related stories at:

Australian Workplace and Discrimination Representatives
Non Lawyer Workplace Representatives
Hotline No. 1800 333 666
Website: www.awdr.com.au

Discrimination of Crimeans on part of EU inadmissible — Russian ForMin

MOSCOW, December 18. /TASS/. Discrimination of Crimeans and Sevastopol residents on the part of the European Union for politicized reasons is inadmissible, the Russian Foreign Ministry said Thursday in connection with the European Council’s decisions on Crimea and Sevastopol.

“We consider absolutely inadmissible any discrimination of Crimeans and Sevastopol residents for politicized reasons,” the ministry said.

“Brussels should realize that Crimea and Sevastopol are an integral part of the Russian Federation,” it said. “In this connection, we would like to remind the EU of our legitimate right to properly react to its so-called restrictive measures regarding all Russian citizens and legal entities without exception.”

Repost from ITAR-TASS

Read more about Discrimination related news here.

Read from Source:

Australian Workplace and Discrimination Representatives
Non Lawyer Workplace and Unfair Dismissal Representatives
Hotline No. 1800 333 666
Website: www.awdr.com.au

Tamil Catholics call for end to ‘untouchable’ discrimination

Tamil Catholics call for end to 'untouchable' discrimination

“Untouchable” Catholics in the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu on Monday urged the Vatican to eradicate caste discrimination within the Indian Church.

In a petition delivered to the Vatican embassy in Delhi, a group of Tamil Catholics belonging to several dalit organizations and a Tamil political party called for Vatican intervention.

“The dalits have a separate cemetery and are not allowed to enter the cemetery for upper caste Christians. Similarly, they are not allowed to attend the Mass conducted for the upper caste community members and have to attend a separate Mass,” said Kudanthai Arasan, president of the Viduthalai Tamil Puligal Katchi party, which is allied with India’s ruling party.

Dalits, or untouchables, are the lowest caste within Hindu society. Huge numbers of dalits have converted to Christianity and Islam over the decades, though the religions offer limited protection from societal prejudice.

“Dalits are the majority in the Christian community and still they are not given proper representation in the church at any level,” said Vinod Kumar, secretary of Viduthalai Tamil Puligal Katchi.

According to Kumar, dalits make up 70 percent of India’s Christian population.

Activist Franklin Caesar, who accompanied the group to the Vatican embassy, told ucanews.com that the Indian Church talks about unification but makes few true efforts to improve the situation.

Even within Hinduism, said Caesar, dalits have been allowed into the inner sanctum of the temples but are still blocked from such areas inside churches.

“The Christian converts from the upper caste rule the Indian Church and the dalits do not get promoted,” he added.

At a protest held before the delivery of the petition, the group handed out pamphlets condemning Pope Francis’ scheduled visit to Sri Lanka next month.

“The Pope should not go to Sri Lanka during election time. Why is he going there?” said Kumar.

The elections are scheduled for January 8, 2015.

Kumar said that the pope’s January 13-15 visit to Sri Lanka will be a boon for its president Mahinda Rajapaksa, whose regime has been accused of widespread human rights abuses including those committed against ethnic Tamils during the country’s civil war, which ended in 2009.

Rajapaksa is seeking an unprecedented third term and Catholic leaders have warned that the visit will be used as propaganda.

“The Pope’s visit will help Rajapaksa win the elections as the latter wants to justify to the world that he is a good man,” Kumar said, adding that Christians in Sri Lanka could be easily influenced to vote for Rajapaksa due to the pope’s visit.

“Inviting the pope to Sri Lanka is a planned strategy by Rajapaksa which the pope has fallen into,” he added.

Please visit our Discrimination page for more info.

Story by Ritu Sharma

Repost from ucanews

Read from Source:

Australian Workplace and Discrimination Representatives
Non Lawyer Workplace and Unfair Dismissal Representatives
Hotline No. 1800 333 666
Website: www.awdr.com.au

When Talking About Bias Backfires Adam Grant and Sheryl Sandberg on Discrimination at Work

A FATHER and his son are in a car accident. The father is killed and the son is seriously injured. The son is taken to the hospital where the surgeon says, “I cannot operate, because this boy is my son.”

This popular brain teaser dates back many years, but it remains relevant today; 40 to 75 percent of people still can’t figure it out. Those who do solve it usually take a few minutes to fathom that the boy’s mother could be a surgeon. Even when we have the best of intentions, when we hear “surgeon” or “boss,” the image that pops into our minds is often male.

Adam Grant and Sheryl Sandberg on Discrimination at Work

Our culture’s strong gender stereotypes extend beyond image to performance, leading us to believe that men are more competent than women. Managers — both male and female — continue to favor men over equally qualified women in hiring, compensation, performance evaluation and promotion decisions. This limits opportunities for women and deprives organizations of valuable talent.

To solve this problem, business leaders, academics and journalists are working to raise awareness about bias. The assumption is that when people realize that biases are widespread, they will be more likely to overcome them. But new research suggests that if we’re not careful, making people aware of bias can backfire, leading them to discriminate more rather than less.

In several experiments, Prof. Michelle Duguid of Washington University in St. Louis and Prof. Melissa Thomas-Hunt of the University of Virginia studied whether making people aware of bias would lessen it. They informed some people that stereotypes were rare and told others that stereotypes were common, then asked for their perceptions of women. Those who read that stereotypes were common rated women as significantly less career-oriented and more family-oriented. Even when instructed to “try to avoid thinking about others in such a manner,” people still viewed women more traditionally after reading that a vast majority held stereotypes.

In another study, Professors Duguid and Thomas-Hunt told managers that stereotypes were common or rare. Then, they asked managers to read a transcript from a job interview of a candidate described as either female or male. At the end of the interview, the candidate asked for higher compensation and a nonstandard bonus. When the managers read that many people held stereotypes, they were 28 percent less interested in hiring the female candidate. They also judged her as 27 percent less likable. The same information did not alter their judgments of male candidates.

Why would knowledge about stereotype prevalence lead to greater stereotyping? We can find clues in research led by Prof. Robert Cialdini at Arizona State University. In a national park, Professor Cialdini’s team tried to stop people from stealing petrified wood by posting: “Many past visitors have removed the petrified wood from the park, changing the state of the Petrified Forest.” Even with this warning, theft rates stood at 5 percent. So they made the sign more severe: “Your heritage is being vandalized every day by theft losses of petrified wood of 14 tons a year, mostly a small piece at a time.” This warning influenced theft, but not in the direction you’d expect: stealing jumped from 5 percent to almost 8 percent.

The message people received was not “Don’t steal petrified wood,” but “Stealing petrified wood is a common and socially acceptable behavior.” We have the same reaction when we learn about the ubiquity of stereotypes. If everyone else is biased, we don’t need to worry as much about censoring ourselves.

If awareness makes it worse, how do we make it better? The solution isn’t to stop pointing out stereotypes. Instead, we need to communicate that these biases are undesirable and unacceptable.

Professor Cialdini’s team slashed the theft rate to 1.67 percent by adding a simple sentence to the sign:

“Please don’t remove the petrified wood from the park.”

Professors Duguid and Thomas-Hunt used a similar approach to prevent bias awareness from backfiring.

Rather than merely informing managers that stereotypes persisted, they added that a “vast majority of people try to overcome their stereotypic preconceptions.” With this adjustment, discrimination vanished in their studies. After reading this message, managers were 28 percent more interested in working with the female candidate who negotiated assertively and judged her as 25 percent more likable.

When we communicate that a vast majority of people hold some biases, we need to make sure that we’re not legitimating prejudice. By reinforcing the idea that people want to conquer their biases and that there are benefits to doing so, we send a more effective message: Most people don’t want to discriminate, and you shouldn’t either.

When a stereotype can get you fired why should you speak up? I’m a lesbian. I do not broadcast that fact at work. I’m sure that some…

There should be at least two correct answers to the brain teaser, all confronting biases. The second solution is that the boy has two…

Really when we stop talking about bias perhaps it will go away.

Encouraging people to correct for biases does more than change the way we view others. It also affects the opportunities women will seek for themselves. One of us, Adam, presented data in his classes at Wharton on the underrepresentation of women in major leadership roles and discussed the factors that held women back. He thought a public dialogue would prompt action. But during the next five months, there was no change in the percentage of female M.B.A. students who applied for a leadership position on campus.

The following year, he shared the same data about the shortage of female leaders, with one sentence added at the end: “I don’t ever want to see this happen again.” During the next five months, there was a 65 percent increase in the number of female M.B.A. students who sought out leadership roles compared with those who had in the previous year. And the female students who heard this statement were 53 percent more likely to apply for leadership positions than those who did not hear it that year.

To motivate women at work, we need to be explicit about our disapproval of the leadership imbalance as well as our support for female leaders.

When more women lead, performance improves. Start-ups led by women are more likely to succeed; innovative firms with more women in top management are more profitable; and companies with more gender diversity have more revenue, customers, market share and profits. A comprehensive analysis of 95 studies on gender differences showed that when it comes to leadership skills, although men are more confident, women are more competent.

To break down the barriers that hold women back, it’s not enough to spread awareness. If we don’t reinforce that people need — and want — to overcome their biases, we end up silently condoning the status quo.

So let’s be clear: We want to see these biases vanish, and we know you do, too.

Read more: Discrimination related news.

Story by ADAM GRANT and SHERYL SANDBERG

Repost from New York Times

Read from Source Australian Workplace and Discrimination Representatives

Caste discrimination doesn’t even spare netas

BENGALURU: BJP MP Ramesh C Jigajinagi has been in public life for more than three decades and held several high positions, but does not enter temples of caste Hindus. The reason: the discrimination and humiliation he has suffered because of being a dalit.

The 62-year-old leader was a state legislator from 1983 to 1998, serving as minister under various chief ministers, and has been a Lok Sabha member since then.

“I have suffered a lot of discrimination. It has continued even after I entered politics. People feel offended and they tease and humiliate us. I have suffered immensely. It pains. Why should I endure it? Hence, I decided not to enter any temple,” said Jigajinagi, a post-graduate.

Why can’t he force his rights? “I can’t be on a collision course with people as I am in electoral politics. It’s a compulsion. Some sacrifices are necessary. I have left their god to them. It has made them happy,” he said adding: “No amount of laws will eradicate this discrimination. The only solution is that people should realize themselves and open up their hearts.”

Not all politicians are as candid as this MP from Vijayapura, but they admit that caste-based discrimination still exists. The subjugation is not overt, but subtle and unspoken, they say.

“Discrimination has gone beyond caste, morphing into a person’s skin colour and profession. People can’t overtly display it. Education has helped its practice in a subtle way. We have to swallow the bitter pill. As we are public representatives and our job is to bind people together, it is not appropriate to express our experiences openly,” said Priyank M Kharge, MLA from Chittapur in Kalaburagi.

Of the 224 assembly seats in the state, 25 are reserved for SCs and 17 for STs. Like Priyank, other legislators too prefer to keep their experiences to themselves. They say their position in the society, role in the development process and stringent laws have helped insulate them from the harsh treatment by the dominant castes.

“Due to increased awareness, the practice has reduced by 70-75%. When it comes to us, it becomes inevitable for people to accept us,” said Rudrappa Manappa Lamani, MLA from Haveri.

Some people claim they never faced any partiality based on their caste. “It has not happened with me,” claimed MLC VS Ugrappa, who belongs to the ST community. According to him, the inhuman practice had reduced by 60-70% in the society. “It’s best to ignore incidents like the Kuppegala (the school in Mysore district where upper caste students refused to eat in the school because the cook was a dalit),” he said.

Read more: Discrimination, Physical Features Discrimination, Disability Discrimination and more.

Story by ND Shiva Kumar,TNN

Repost from The Times of India

Read from Source Australian Workplace and Discrimination Representatives

No discrimination against anyone on the basis of religion: Government

Discrimination

Discrimination

NEW DELHI: Government today said it does not discriminate anyone on the basis of religion, caste and creed and deals with criminals according to their crime.

Minister of State for Home Haribhai Parthibhai Chaudhary told Lok Sabha that as per the National Crime Records Bureau data, there were 1,92,202 Hindus, 57,936 Muslims, 12,406 Christians and 4,293 other undertrial prisoners in jails at the end of 2013.

“There is no bias, no discrimination against anyone on the basis of religion or caste. A criminal is a criminal,” he said in reply to a question by Asaduddin Owaisi (AIMIM) as to why proportion of Muslim prisoners in jails is more compared to their population ratio.

The minister said there were 59,326 Scheduled Caste, 31,581 Scheduled Tribe, 87,848 OBC and 99,748 other undertrial prisoners till the end of last year.

He said till December 2013, the total number of convicted prisoners were 1,29,608 and there were 2,78,503 undertrial prisoners in various jails.

Chaudhary said following a directive of the Supreme Court to release the undertrial prisoners who have completed half of their maximum imprisonment period, around 1.3 lakh undertrial prisoners were released from prisons.

“But the problem is even if we release some undertrial prisoners, more undertrial prisoners come to jails,” he said.

The Minister said all state governments have been requested to take necessary action to comply with the Supreme Court order to release undertrial prisoners after fulfilling the requirement of Section 436A of CrPC.

Read more about:

Discrimination, Race Discrimination and Racism, Disability Discrimination, Pregnancy Discrimination, Physical Features Discrimination and more.

Story by PTI

Repost from Economic Times

Read from Source Australian Workplace and Discrimination Representatives

New Study Finds That Weight Discrimination in the Workplace is Just as Horrible and Depressing as Ever

A new study out of Vanderbilt University has confirmed prior research — and what many women already know — about the earning power of fat women: they earn less than their peers across different types of work, and this holds true even when their level of education is accounted for.

The study controlling for educational background is important, as this has often been suggested as the “real” reason fat women earn less, because they as a group also tend to be less educated, which is often put down to their being poorer, because they tend to get lower-paying jobs, all of which comes down to a hugely depressing and seemingly endless ride on the blame carousel. Because, it seems, no one likes to cop to the possibility that maybe fat women are paid less simply because of cultural bias against them.

A bias, it turns out, that seems to have a specific impact on the paychecks of fat women, and is a statistically insignificant issue for fat men.

Fat women earning less than their smaller peers is hardly new information; a 2010 study published in the Journal of Applied Psychology that analyzed pay discrepancies between people of different sizes found some dramatic differences. This study broke women’s body sizes down into categories of “very thin,” “thin,” “average,” “heavy,” and “very heavy.” It found that when compared to women of average weight, “very thin” women earned $22,000 more a year, while “very heavy” women earned almost $19,000 less.

And lest you think these burdens are shouldered only by the extremely obese, a weight gain of 25 pounds predicted an annual salary loss of approximately $14,000 per year — or even more, if the woman gaining the weight was previously thin, as thin women who gain weight are penalized more harshly than already-overweight women who do so. Even being as little as 13 pounds overweight resulted in $9,000 less per year. I hope this demonstrates that this issue is not exclusively of concern to the very fat, but women in general.

The new data, in a study authored by Jennifer Shinall, an assistant professor of law at Vanderbilt Law School, looks not only at differences in salary, but at the types of work fat women are likely to get. Every pound gained lowers the likelihood of a woman working in higher paying jobs that involve interaction with the public, or other forms of personal communication. And if they do get these jobs, they earn an average of 5% less than their average-weight counterparts anyway.

My own personal experience supports the notion that fat women can get a raw deal when job-hunting. I’ve been on lots of job interviews in my adult life, and even as a person with an unusual amount of self-confidence and a meticulous sense of personal presentation, I have lost count of the number of instances in which I have experienced this bias myself. I have had lengthy phone interviews with would-be bosses who seemed barely able to contain their certainty that I was the right person for the job — and then seen their faces perceptibly fall when I appeared in their office. I have met hiring managers who were overwilling to trade social exchanges about music and favorite restaurants during introductory chats via phone and email, but who turned aloof and distant once we were face to face, calculatedly avoiding eye contact, and in some instances plodding through the formal interview as though it was merely a hurdle to be overcome, so they could send me home and very shortly dispatch an email informing me that although they are grateful for my time, I am not the right fit for their needs.

I can’t say I’ve ever regretted missing out on the job in these cases; why would I want to work for an employer so put off by my appearance? I think of it as dodging a particularly slow-moving bullet. Nor do I think that these hiring managers were all horrible callous superficial fat-loathing monsters. Indeed, odds are strongly in favor of their not even being fully conscious of their bias, because it is often the nature of biases to be invisible to those they influence, and a revulsion toward fat people sure seems like a normal cultural response, unless you’ve ever been moved to think critically about it.

But it is frustrating to know — even if I can never prove it — that I was dismissed not because of a lack of expertise or capability, but because I did not look the way that person expected me to look. That is an injustice that you can get used to knowing, but it never stops being a tough thing to accept.

I’d wager that it is the same bias that likely keeps fat women as a group out of more interaction-heavy jobs, as the Vanderbilt study found; it’s likely that many businesses would prefer not to have a fat woman as a public-facing employee representing them to clients or customers, out of a fear that a fat woman’s appearance will suggest certain negative connotations that said public may then negatively associate with the business itself.

And despite the conventional wisdom that describes fat people as lazy humps — the same wisdom that leads hiring managers to assume that a fat job candidate will work less hard than a thinner one — Shinall found the opposite was true in occupational reality.

“As a woman becomes heavier she is actually more likely to work in a physical activity occupation. So morbidly obese women are the most likely to work in a physically demanding occupation,” says Shinall. “Physically demanding positions are healthcare support (nurse’s aides or home health aides), healthcare practitioners (such as registered nurses), food preparation and childcare.”

That’s right: the fatter a woman is, the more likely she is to be working in a physically taxing, extremely active job in which she is on her feet for most of the day, while thinner women are more likely to be chilling behind a desk and getting the bulk of their daytime exercise walking to and from the vending machine. Incidentally, this is also true of the fattest men, according to the study, which states that, “Obese men… are more likely than normal-weight men to work in jobs that emphasize all types of physical activity—including strength, speed, and stamina.” Figure that one out, society.

Ultimately, the purpose of Shinall’s research is to analyze these issues from a legal perspective.

All of this data, says Shinall, could set the stage for some very interesting legal strategies on behalf of overweight women in the coming years. While some women have sought protection from discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Shinall notes that the fact that many obese women do just fine in physically demanding jobs suggest that may not be the perfect tool.

Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act, on the other hand, opens the door to something different: a “sex plus” claim, based on a company’s unequal treatment of men and women facing precisely the same circumstances (such as a refusal to hire someone with preschool-aged children.) It’s this law that female flight attendants used to defeat formal weight limits.

Weight discrimination has always been nearly impossible to prove in court, in part because there are so few laws in place explicitly making it illegal. Only the state of Michigan includes weight discrimination alongside race, sex, religion, and other points of bias in employment. On a local level, Santa Cruz, CA, Washington, DC, Binghamton, NY, Urbana, IL, Madison, WI and San Francisco, CA all have laws on the books outlawing discrimination based on weight. But that’s it. In other places, even if by some feat you are able to prove weight discrimination beyond a shadow of a doubt, you then also have to prove that the discrimination is itself against the law — by citing the ADA or other legislation and trying to make it fit your situation.

But employing the ADA as a legal grounds against weight bias has long been controversial, since many able-bodied fat people are reluctant to align obesity with disability as a universal fact. Some fat people have disabilities related to their weight, but there are also a great many who do not, and including able-bodied fat people under the ADA could dilute the ADA’s purpose, especially considering that the biases and challenges disabled folks face trying to live in the world are often very different than those experienced by fat people. We need not conflate the two ideas for each to be important and worthy of recognizing on its own merits.

Using Title 7 as a basis for protection would identify weight bias as a matter of sex discrimination, a claim bolstered by Shinall’s findings (and that of many other studies) that fat men do not experience the same pay discrepancies based on weight. Fat bias in the workplace — at least when it comes to a paycheck — is a consistent and severe problem for women at all levels of employment, background, and education, which ought to make gender the central feature. As Shinall notes, in this light, it would make little sense to approach this as a matter of physical ability or accommodation.

The simple fact is, many of us don’t want to believe that weight discrimination in the workplace is real, no matter how many studies and statistics come out demonstrating it. Or, worse yet, that it may be real, but it is acceptable and correct. Rather than acknowledge the injustice of fat women being paid less and given fewer opportunities because of how they look, it is easier to assume that they are, intrinsically, worth less as employees. Such an assertion comes naturally in a culture that treats fat women as though they are likewise worth less as human beings. And so, the argument goes, this is not discrimination, but rather the appropriate way of business.

Fat bias is pervasive issue with measurable affects on people’s lives, and not simply a cosmetic concern, or a source of occasional public discomfort. From public insults, to difficulty securing quality and supportive healthcare, to staggering pay discrepancies, it is not a minor problem, but one that affects millions of people to varying degrees, many of whom don’t even realize they are being hurt by it, because they believe they are getting only what they deserve. And that’s the great tragedy of weight discrimination — the fact that so many people experiencing it believe that it is justified, and not something they are entitled to resent or to fight. As long as that cycle keeps churning, change is going to come slowly indeed.

More info on discrimination related news such physical features discrimination, age discrimination, etc at our web site.

story by Lesley Kinzel

Story Reposted from Time

Read from Source Australian Workplace and Discrimination Representatives