From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Re: Why are many low-income women fat? (was Re: Separate but Equal?)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 16:58:26 GMT

rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:

>In article <BzML6w.Hxw@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>>>Wonderful, I am happy for you. I am not fat, and also look a lot younger
>>>than I am (it seems to be about 10-12 years, people often ask when I seem
>>>too knowledgable and experienced my visual age, I have started asking for
>>>their guess as a condition for an answer), so this looks more like a 
>>>matter of genetics. I am curious as to wether it means that one will live
>>>longer as well.


>	Hate to burst your bubble, but I wouldn't put too much 
>	faith in this "I look younger than I am bit".  *Especially* 
>	if such comments are coming from men.

The thoughtful paragraph you quote above is, unfortunately, not
by me. It is by a man saying that he appears younger than he is.

I note that my mother appears younger than she is; and she once
got in trouble, on a bus, when an angry driver refused to believe that
she was over 65. I do think the driver's reaction was sincere, even
though he was a man.

>>Of course not. But I understand from sci.math that appearance
>>discrimination against women *is* an issue. This newsgroup carried a
>>posting from a male mathematician. He was *extremely* upset, because,
>>in his role of evaluating job applications, he had received a
>>letter from a colleague, asking him to take on the "mission" of
>>finding out whether a female mathematician was cute or not!


>	The same occurs for men.  It is well known that
>	appearance has a great deal of affect on how well one
>	succeeds in life.  It's not a discrimination thing, it's
>	a human thing.  As far as I can tell, the only way to 
>	solve it would be to put everyones eyes out at birth.
>	
>	We judge *everything* by appearance--not just people.  Most
>	people eat attractively prepared food despite the fact that

>	it has little or nothing to do with taste or flavor (which
>	is clearly more important).  People prefer attractively styled
>	furniture no matter how much more comfortable ratty looking
>	chair might be.  

People considered for highly technical positions are not furniture. 

The best analogy is not to a chair, but to a computer. And if
I were buying a computer, I would definitely be more concerned with
what chip was inside, than the esthetic quality of the casing.
(I note that computers are, on the average, not as attractive as
chairs; other considerations seem to be more important.)

I also refuse to believe that any social injustice cannot be minimized
(though few can be eliminated entirely). In particular, I note that the 
physical appearance of women was *not* as overvalued 30 years ago,
as it is now. 

If you will take a fast rewind back to Victorian times, you note
that birth was much more important then than it is now; so important
that noblemens' sons could be offered positions they did not 
deserve, and otherwise dump on people and get away with it. (Read
the poem "My Lord Tomnoddy" in A Subtreasury of British Humor.) 

By the twentieth century, birth, in the sense of noble or not,
had become much less important. I note that Von Neumann's career was
not particularly affected, for good or for ill, by the fact that
he was entitled to the "Von" at the beginning of his name.

Lenore Levine

Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women