How much does physical attractiveness matter in big law? Forum

[Anonymous User]

I think being obese is a bigger negative in biglaw than it is in other industries, even compared to other professional white collar industries. I cannot articulate why exactly, although I think obese people do worse at OCI and get worse job outcomes, then have a more difficult time establishing rapport with partners and senior associates, and also struggle more with the very demanding hours than their more in-shape counterparts. It's also more challenging for obese litigators to carry boxes of exhibits into courthouses on a summer day. I don't think "physical unattractiveness" as a general matter comes with all of these negatives, though certainly some.

(I am saying this all as an obese associate myself)

Agree with the physical demands of the job. Stamina and energy are correlated with physical health. There are and always will be exceptions, but this is largely true.

There are always going to be assholes that make judgments about obese people. I do think that a person's confidence and self-awareness can help overcome those judgments. In my experience, very insecure people who are obese are more likely to be singled out because their insecurity makes interactions uncomfortable. I AM NOT CLAIMING THIS IS UNIQUE TO OBESE INDIVIDUALS. In general, undesirable physical attributes are a hindrance usually to the extent that the owners allow them to be.

I think this is important. I’m fat, but I’ve had no problem getting jobs (I didn’t have great grades either). It has more to do with being insecure. I’ve accepted long ago that it makes no sense to be sad about being fat, and so I haven’t let it bother me for a long time. If someone wants to call me fat or talk about my obesity, so be it.

I do think attractive people can be more mediocre in biglaw. I’ve had a few colleagues who were absolutely terrible associates who somehow made it 6+ years. But they were all extremely attractive. Like a real life 10. This applies to both men and women.

I do think some of the V10 (specifically DPW and PW) have extremely attractive people at the first year associate level, but then it kind of balances out after that.

TL;DR - Being attractive helps, but not as much as people would think.

[Anonymous User]

Not gonna lie, my summer class at Davis Polk years back was substantially above average attractiveness compared to law school and some other firms I’ve worked at. It was also a cut above the summer classes at S&C, Cravath, and Simpson, at least based on my offer dinners at those firms and the people I knew there, with some notable exceptions. There was obviously a range and would be at any firm, and this didn’t exactly hold true for the junior associates I met, but I was pleasantly surprised by the summer class. Gibson also seems to do above average on this metric.

This is all within the context of law. Naturally other industries like media, marketing, and fashion have much more attractive people on average.

I’ve done the research but I just don’t see it for DPW NYC. Maybe in the old days. Kirkland, CSM, and STB seem solid.

[Anonymous User]

Being an attractive female associate can definitely hurt. Speaking as a former BigLaw associate turned BigLaw legal recruiter, I frequently see female partners/seniors make attractive female associates' lives so miserable that they leave their firms (or the profession entirely)

What is your support for a causal connection here? I find the trope of women being jealous of women over envy of physical appearance to be incredibly overstated and simplistic. The idea that female partners in big law are so consumed by envy of another's beauty is absurd. What leads you to credibly conclude that female big law partners are tyrants to attractive female associates for the reason that they are attractive? Partners with a God complex, female or male, can be nasty to juniors of any sex (despite appearance) and often are.

This has been my experience as well. It’s certainly not all the time, but if you are genuinely attractive there are a chunk of women who act this way. No idea why.

[Anonymous User]

Being an attractive female associate can definitely hurt. Speaking as a former BigLaw associate turned BigLaw legal recruiter, I frequently see female partners/seniors make attractive female associates' lives so miserable that they leave their firms (or the profession entirely)

What is your support for a causal connection here? I find the trope of women being jealous of women over envy of physical appearance to be incredibly overstated and simplistic. The idea that female partners in big law are so consumed by envy of another's beauty is absurd. What leads you to credibly conclude that female big law partners are tyrants to attractive female associates for the reason that they are attractive? Partners with a God complex, female or male, can be nasty to juniors of any sex (despite appearance) and often are.

This has been my experience as well. It’s certainly not all the time, but if you are genuinely attractive there are a chunk of women who act this way. No idea why.

I haven't seen it rise to the level of female partners/seniors driving associates out, but I do think there can be an undercurrent of "competition" between the women - looks-wise and otherwise. I am sure many women on this thread have felt this.

[Anonymous User]

Being an attractive female associate can definitely hurt. Speaking as a former BigLaw associate turned BigLaw legal recruiter, I frequently see female partners/seniors make attractive female associates' lives so miserable that they leave their firms (or the profession entirely)

What is your support for a causal connection here? I find the trope of women being jealous of women over envy of physical appearance to be incredibly overstated and simplistic. The idea that female partners in big law are so consumed by envy of another's beauty is absurd. What leads you to credibly conclude that female big law partners are tyrants to attractive female associates for the reason that they are attractive? Partners with a God complex, female or male, can be nasty to juniors of any sex (despite appearance) and often are.

This has been my experience as well. It’s certainly not all the time, but if you are genuinely attractive there are a chunk of women who act this way. No idea why.

To the extent this is genuinely about looks (and isn't an assumption observers are bringing to the table because of the trope of women's jealousy), it's because women are judged and valued on their looks in a way that functions to pit women against each other as competitors for this kind of approval. It's stupid to treat attractive women differently but the impulse comes out of the idea that the thing our society values most in a woman is beauty (which is absolutely associated with youth) and the corresponding assumption that (young) attractive women have some kind of unfair, unearned edge in life over less attractive (older) women. (I agree with all the posts here suggesting that this is way more complicated in practice - that is, beauty doesn't guarantee you a charmed life, nor is it necessary to succeed - but I think the value placed on women being beautiful does result in this assumption.)

Conversely (and I think this is actually a bigger part than pure jealousy), I think some older women can be tough on some younger women because they (the older women) had such shitty times getting to where they are, they either feel that they have to prepare younger women to take that kind of abuse, or have unconsciously absorbed the assumption that that's just how younger women should be treated.

[Anonymous User]

Being an attractive female associate can definitely hurt. Speaking as a former BigLaw associate turned BigLaw legal recruiter, I frequently see female partners/seniors make attractive female associates' lives so miserable that they leave their firms (or the profession entirely)

What is your support for a causal connection here? I find the trope of women being jealous of women over envy of physical appearance to be incredibly overstated and simplistic. The idea that female partners in big law are so consumed by envy of another's beauty is absurd. What leads you to credibly conclude that female big law partners are tyrants to attractive female associates for the reason that they are attractive? Partners with a God complex, female or male, can be nasty to juniors of any sex (despite appearance) and often are.

This has been my experience as well. It’s certainly not all the time, but if you are genuinely attractive there are a chunk of women who act this way. No idea why.

To the extent this is genuinely about looks (and isn't an assumption observers are bringing to the table because of the trope of women's jealousy), it's because women are judged and valued on their looks in a way that functions to pit women against each other as competitors for this kind of approval. It's stupid to treat attractive women differently but the impulse comes out of the idea that the thing our society values most in a woman is beauty (which is absolutely associated with youth) and the corresponding assumption that (young) attractive women have some kind of unfair, unearned edge in life over less attractive (older) women. (I agree with all the posts here suggesting that this is way more complicated in practice - that is, beauty doesn't guarantee you a charmed life, nor is it necessary to succeed - but I think the value placed on women being beautiful does result in this assumption.)

Conversely (and I think this is actually a bigger part than pure jealousy), I think some older women can be tough on some younger women because they (the older women) had such shitty times getting to where they are, they either feel that they have to prepare younger women to take that kind of abuse, or have unconsciously absorbed the assumption that that's just how younger women should be treated.

I'm sure all of these things are possible and happen in the world or any workplace generally. People are envious of others for many reasons. Appearance, charm, money, etc.

But no one has addressed providing evidence of the casual connection asked for. X--->Y. Senior female associates/partners jealousy of young attractive women ---> brutal treatment and driving these young attractive women out of the firm. How many times do we talk about partners being terrible to work for generally? I'm still waiting for particular examples of these female partners, green with envy, taking their rage out on beatiful, younger women. I'm sure it happens sometimes. Because human beings project insecurities and anxieties and can be jealous creatures. I don't see how that supports the claim of older female partners "frequently" driving out younger ones. Also, these conversations almost always exclusively occur around women. Because even when a woman makes millions as a share partner, her decision making regarding young associates is rooted in their appearance.

Please. Yes of course it's more complicated than rich female partner can't be jealous. She can be. Anybody can be. Yes society tells women that you can be rich, brilliant, kind, and yet if you're not beatiful you're still somehow a failure. Doesn't mean it makes sense to indulge this trope in the way some of these comments are doing.

[Anonymous User]

This has been my experience as well. It’s certainly not all the time, but if you are genuinely attractive there are a chunk of women who act this way. No idea why.

To the extent this is genuinely about looks (and isn't an assumption observers are bringing to the table because of the trope of women's jealousy), it's because women are judged and valued on their looks in a way that functions to pit women against each other as competitors for this kind of approval. It's stupid to treat attractive women differently but the impulse comes out of the idea that the thing our society values most in a woman is beauty (which is absolutely associated with youth) and the corresponding assumption that (young) attractive women have some kind of unfair, unearned edge in life over less attractive (older) women. (I agree with all the posts here suggesting that this is way more complicated in practice - that is, beauty doesn't guarantee you a charmed life, nor is it necessary to succeed - but I think the value placed on women being beautiful does result in this assumption.)

Conversely (and I think this is actually a bigger part than pure jealousy), I think some older women can be tough on some younger women because they (the older women) had such shitty times getting to where they are, they either feel that they have to prepare younger women to take that kind of abuse, or have unconsciously absorbed the assumption that that's just how younger women should be treated.

I'm sure all of these things are possible and happen in the world or any workplace generally. People are envious of others for many reasons. Appearance, charm, money, etc.

But no one has addressed providing evidence of the casual connection asked for. X--->Y. Senior female associates/partners jealousy of young attractive women ---> brutal treatment and driving these young attractive women out of the firm. How many times do we talk about partners being terrible to work for generally? I'm still waiting for particular examples of these female partners, green with envy, taking their rage out on beatiful, younger women. I'm sure it happens sometimes. Because human beings project insecurities and anxieties and can be jealous creatures. I don't see how that supports the claim of older female partners "frequently" driving out younger ones. Also, these conversations almost always exclusively occur around women. Because even when a woman makes millions as a share partner, her decision making regarding young associates is rooted in their appearance.

Please. Yes of course it's more complicated than rich female partner can't be jealous. She can be. Anybody can be. Yes society tells women that you can be rich, brilliant, kind, and yet if you're not beatiful you're still somehow a failure. Doesn't mean it makes sense to indulge this trope in the way some of these comments are doing.

Anon immediately above you - I actually completely agree with you, which is why I included the caveat about “to the extent this is genuinely about looks.” I can’t say it never happens, but I’m not claiming some kind of widespread causality here and I too would love to have evidence that envy is actually what’s driving this, as opposed to observers assuming it’s envy due to the “women are jealous” trope. I agree, too, it’s not clear whether the older women here are actually treating younger attractive women worse than they treat other associates, or if the older women treat everyone badly and observers read into it when the associate happens to be a younger attractive woman.

That said, I do think there can be generational tensions between older and younger women, and that they don’t play out the same way when men are involved (either between older/younger men or men/women). But I don’t think that’s because older women are *envious* of younger women’s looks, but because the stuff I mentioned in my second paragraph. Women still face enough challenges in the workplace that different experiences with those challenges can affect how women in positions of power treat the women who come after them. Anecdotally, I’ve definitely seen some older successful women be tougher on younger women than they are on younger men, but I don’t think it’s usually out of jealousy - it’s usually the effect of the shit they themselves had to deal with to get where they are. To be clear, lots of older powerful women deal with that shit by making sure the women who come after them never have to deal with it, but not everyone responds that way.

I think this can especially be the case given changing attitudes about work in millennials and beyond (I think Gen X has definitely tried to move beyond Boomer assumptions about work = life but it’s something that’s more marked with millenials). At least, to the extent that generational stereotypes have any meaning (but I do think attitudes towards work have been changing).

In any case, I talked about the valuing of beauty because I do think that’s a thing that does affect how women relate to each other (that is, if older women are envious of younger attractive women, they’re not just jealous bitches, they’re having one possible response to what our society values). But I agree that to the extent older women partners are running off younger women associates, it’s way more complicated than just envy of their looks.

[ZVBXRPL]

why did this rancid shitpost have to be anonymous?

Because it’s TLS employee trying to up post count so they keep their job. Duh

[Anonymous User]

Would like to address grooming habits here. Being well-groomed can make a very big impact in terms of first impressions on others. What do you define as being well-groomed?

I basically make sure of the following:
- hair is washed/clean
- appropriate shoes
- clothing that is not wrinkled
- eyebrows aren't out of control
- good hygiene

Do you all (especially women) put in much more effort than that? For example how much thought is put into your choice of clothing outside of it being professional attire? I ask because as a woman, I do feel some societal pressure to have a full face of make up (obv nothing too crazy), hair dyed (no whites or roots), no body / facial hair, maybe making sure my hair is straightened and looks especially neat. But all of these things take a lot of time and effort. Barely have the energy for it now, can't imagine I'd have more energy while working 12+ hours.

This woman certainly doesn't. I've read those posts, and while this may vary between firms and class years, I think much of it is driven by their own neuroses. That's especially true of all the complaining about the "makeup tax" chewing up and extra 1-2 hours every day. Makeup is optional. I never wear it. Wearing one's hair down is optional, and putting it in a bun takes less time than what most men probably do to theirs in the morning. I don't know how to straighten my hair, and can't imagine why I'd ever want to. I don't own a skirt suit, and often go weeks without shaving my legs. (It's not 1950. You're allowed to wear pants.) I have what I suppose is a normal amount of hair on my forearms, and I've never done anything about it. Prior to reading this comment, it never occurred to me that maybe I was supposed to be dyeing my hair or doing anything to my eyebrows.

The vehemence with which some women insist that they're required to do all those things (usually while railing against the injustice of this "requirement") has always puzzled me. Different firms may have different expectations, but at my V10, this is a non-issue, at least for day-to-day work.

[Anonymous User]

I am one of the people who's railed against the makeup (etc) tax. It's not a firm/employer specific thing; I don't think biglaw requires it any more or less than anywhere else. It's just being a woman in the US thing. It's great that you feel comfortable not wearing makeup and putting your hair in a bun every day, but people who don't aren't simply neurotic, but are responding to a whole raft of social expectations. I don't have perfect skin; my eyebrows are crazy bushy left to their own devices and I prefer them not to be; I don't think wearing my hair in a bun flatters me; etc etc.

To the person who asked the question about effort: I do think it's pretty subjective. I'm sure that no one around me is thinking about me enough to care about my level of makeup etc. But there is a general expectation of looking "professional" where I work. I think most women wear makeup, but minimal; most dye their hair (I don't despite starting to go gray, it's my one line in the sand). I actually don't see a lot of women wearing buns, though the styling isn't like Miss America-big-hair elaborate or anything. I haven't inspected people's legs for shaving frequency or anything, but no one has noticeable body hair. Again, I think this is just generic "professional woman"-ness. Personally, I don't straighten my hair, but I do blow dry it most mornings because I don't like going into work with wet hair and I don't see anyone do this either (I prefer to shower in the morning).

But the thing is that I can know various expectations around women's appearance are bogus and still feel uncomfortable not following them. Like I know full well that I can wear pants. But I find them way harder to fit than skirts/dresses, and wear skirts/dresses because they're more comfortable. So when it's bare-leg weather I shave. I know I can just let my hair air dry, but even if I liked the way that looks, it would mean showing up to work with wet hair, or getting up earlier (blech), or showering the night before (but bedhead). I know I don't have to wear makeup, but if I have to interact with people face to face, I feel more comfortable wearing at least some makeup. I know that wrt clothes they only really need to be clean, appropriate, and in good condition. But coming up with something every day that fits (my size tends to fluctuate), is clean (when did I last do laundry??), fits the weather and my schedule for the day, and that I think looks nice on me is mentally exhausting. I don't have any fashion aspirations - I'm not trying to put together cute or innovative outfits - but I do want to not hate the way I look and feel all day, and something being "professional attire" isn't a guarantee of either of those things.

I mean, maybe this all entirely my own neuroses, but wow, they sell a lot of clothes, makeup, fashion magazines, and the like in this country if I'm only only one who puts any time into this.

And to be clear, in itself my routine isn't terrible at all, but it's still a lot more work than WFH where no one is going to see me (no makeup, no styling hair, no picking out clothes b/c I can wear the same sweatshirt and leggings for the third day in row).

Finally, I'm saying all this as a cisgender white woman so frankly I could probably go to work without having showered for 3 days and no one would blink. But women from groups more underrepresented in law do generally face greater scrutiny. (Like, there is still often a presumption that straighter hair is more professional than curly hair. That is not racially neutral. People tend to read clothing as more "revealing" and "provocative" on women of color than on white women.) So what being "well-groomed" means isn't objective and can matter a lot.

[Anonymous User]

1,000x agree with the post above

[Anonymous User]

(But I feel obligated to point out that fatness isn’t a measure of health and there are plenty of fat people who are fit/won’t struggle with the physical demands of biglaw, just as there are plenty of thin people who are unfit and will struggle. Plus carrying boxes of exhibits into a courthouse is a really weird example of problems in law, since everyone I know uses rolling boxes or carts.)

This is just a modern-day cope. Obesity is absolutely a health risk and fat people are on average unhealthier than people at a healthy weight.

I'm fat myself so I'm not trying to dunk on my fellow fatties. And I agree that people shouldn't make assumptions about somebody's lawyering capabilities simply because they're fat. I'm just not a fan of this "healthy at every size" BS.

[Anonymous User]

(But I feel obligated to point out that fatness isn’t a measure of health and there are plenty of fat people who are fit/won’t struggle with the physical demands of biglaw, just as there are plenty of thin people who are unfit and will struggle. Plus carrying boxes of exhibits into a courthouse is a really weird example of problems in law, since everyone I know uses rolling boxes or carts.)

This is just a modern-day cope. Obesity is absolutely a health risk and fat people are on average unhealthier than people at a healthy weight.

I'm fat myself so I'm not trying to dunk on my fellow fatties. And I agree that people shouldn't make assumptions about somebody's lawyering capabilities simply because they're fat. I'm just not a fan of this "healthy at every size" BS.

This actually isn’t true. I’m not saying everyone is healthy regardless of behaviors, just that research hasn’t been able to find a causal link between weight and health, only a correlation. Not all fat people are healthy, but not all skinny people are healthy; you can’t generalize on someone’s health based on their appearance. (It’s not “healthy at every size,” but “health at every size;” it’s not a claim that everyone is equally healthy, just removing weight from assessments of health.)

[Anonymous User]

(But I feel obligated to point out that fatness isn’t a measure of health and there are plenty of fat people who are fit/won’t struggle with the physical demands of biglaw, just as there are plenty of thin people who are unfit and will struggle. Plus carrying boxes of exhibits into a courthouse is a really weird example of problems in law, since everyone I know uses rolling boxes or carts.)

This is just a modern-day cope. Obesity is absolutely a health risk and fat people are on average unhealthier than people at a healthy weight.

I'm fat myself so I'm not trying to dunk on my fellow fatties. And I agree that people shouldn't make assumptions about somebody's lawyering capabilities simply because they're fat. I'm just not a fan of this "healthy at every size" BS.

This actually isn’t true. I’m not saying everyone is healthy regardless of behaviors, just that research hasn’t been able to find a causal link between weight and health, only a correlation. Not all fat people are healthy, but not all skinny people are healthy; you can’t generalize on someone’s health based on their appearance. (It’s not “healthy at every size,” but “health at every size;” it’s not a claim that everyone is equally healthy, just removing weight from assessments of health.)

It's also completely irrelevant to professionalism. It's nobodies business at work if I have health issues or smoke or whatever. Yet when it comes to weight, everyone feels like it's their job.

Back to the point, fat people (including guys) have to be more careful in how they dress, make sure their clothing fits right etc (and need more alteration). E.g. weirdly I found that size 17.5 slim fit is the best fit shirt for me - anything smaller is too small, but regular fit is a tent.

[Anonymous User]

It's also completely irrelevant to professionalism. It's nobodies business at work if I have health issues or smoke or whatever. Yet when it comes to weight, everyone feels like it's their job.

Back to the point, fat people (including guys) have to be more careful in how they dress, make sure their clothing fits right etc (and need more alteration). E.g. weirdly I found that size 17.5 slim fit is the best fit shirt for me - anything smaller is too small, but regular fit is a tent.

Agreed with all this.

[Anonymous User]

No-makeup woman from above here. It's undeniably true that I'd look prettier if I spent time putting on makeup, worrying about what hairstyles flattered me instead of just doing the easiest thing that passes muster as "professional," etc. Most women would. Most men probably would, too. I just ... don't care. If I'm going to put in that kind of effort, it will be for my SO at home, not for people I work with.

I have a wardrobe of appropriately professional clothes that fit comfortably, in colors that flatter me. My size fluctuates some, too, but that's not a huge issue if everything isn't skintight to begin with. I purposely chose day-to-day clothes that don't require ironing or dry cleaning. They get washed between wearings. I shower daily, and use deodorant. That's all most men do, and it's sufficient. If all of that means I leave some fashion points on the table, so be it. I'd rather have the time I save by not having to worry about any of it.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't do whatever makes them feel good about themselves. But I think it's helpful to keep in mind that men have many of the same issues. Plenty of men have bad skin, gain and lose weight, etc. Some are just plain unattractive, and nothing will change that. They just go on about their lives regardless. That's all anyone expects them to do, and it's probably the healthiest approach.

My basic rule for myself is that if men aren't expected to do something, I'm not going to do it without a good reason. "I want to because it will make me feel good about what I see in the mirror" is a good reason. "All the other women in my group do it" isn't. If all the other women in my group have different aesthetic preferences or priorities than I do, that's fine, but it's nothing to do with me, and it's not a reason for me to do anything differently. Conversely, if all the other women in my group are so insecure that the prospect of a colleague seeing them without lipstick terrifies them, then I'm sorry for them. But since I don't share that issue, me wearing lipstick wouldn't make me happier or make my life better, so I'm not going to do it.

[Anonymous User]

I'm the original anon to bring up obesity as an especially negative factor in biglaw. But I think that biglaw is actually unusually receptive to bad clothing (for male associates), even for obese men. Most partners in my office do not dress very well, so I can fit in with cheaper clothes. And all I need is one well-fitting suit and a few ties and I am ready for any hearing, deposition, trial, etc. No one would ever notice that I am repeating the same navy blue or charcoal suit. For more casual days, I just need a few button down shirts and slacks.

I think the physical quality of being obese, and the perceptions and physical/mental ills associated with it, are unusually tough in biglaw, but I think this second-order effect of clothing looking worse/being more difficult as an obese man is actually less of a negative in biglaw than it would be in other white collar industries. I cannot speak to the experiences of women and I am sure those are more challenging.

[Anonymous User]

I was bald and overweight. Started lifting weights, got a “hair replacement system” (toupee), lost weight, then lateraled. Made a huge difference. People are people at the end of the day, how you look makes an impact.

[Anonymous User]

(But I feel obligated to point out that fatness isn’t a measure of health and there are plenty of fat people who are fit/won’t struggle with the physical demands of biglaw, just as there are plenty of thin people who are unfit and will struggle. Plus carrying boxes of exhibits into a courthouse is a really weird example of problems in law, since everyone I know uses rolling boxes or carts.)

This is just a modern-day cope. Obesity is absolutely a health risk and fat people are on average unhealthier than people at a healthy weight.

I'm fat myself so I'm not trying to dunk on my fellow fatties. And I agree that people shouldn't make assumptions about somebody's lawyering capabilities simply because they're fat. I'm just not a fan of this "healthy at every size" BS.

I didn't make the post you're responding to but I just wanted to say that "health" can be construed very differently in the context that both of you are discussing it. Based on the OP's full post, it sounds like they meant to say that being fat isn't the only measure of health. Eg fat people can have a healthy cholesterol and skinny people can sometimes have poor cholesterol based on how they eat.

I could be incorrect but I didn't get the sense that they were of the mind that being fat isn't an underlying cause of many illnesses. What you're referring to are the Generation Z tiktokers that will comment on videos of 600lb individuals twerking saying things like "you're healthy and fit just the way you are" or encourage people to continue eating the way they do under the guise of demonstrating how much they condemn fatphobia.

[Anonymous User]

because biglaw is culturally upper middle class. in that context, being obese seems low class and outside the norm. Being merely overweight is par for the course (those standards are pretty unrealistic... a 5'10" man is supposed to be 173 pounds max) but being notably obese is not.

[Anonymous User]

(But I feel obligated to point out that fatness isn’t a measure of health and there are plenty of fat people who are fit/won’t struggle with the physical demands of biglaw, just as there are plenty of thin people who are unfit and will struggle. Plus carrying boxes of exhibits into a courthouse is a really weird example of problems in law, since everyone I know uses rolling boxes or carts.)

This is just a modern-day cope. Obesity is absolutely a health risk and fat people are on average unhealthier than people at a healthy weight.

I'm fat myself so I'm not trying to dunk on my fellow fatties. And I agree that people shouldn't make assumptions about somebody's lawyering capabilities simply because they're fat. I'm just not a fan of this "healthy at every size" BS.

I didn't make the post you're responding to but I just wanted to say that "health" can be construed very differently in the context that both of you are discussing it. Based on the OP's full post, it sounds like they meant to say that being fat isn't the only measure of health. Eg fat people can have a healthy cholesterol and skinny people can sometimes have poor cholesterol based on how they eat.

I could be incorrect but I didn't get the sense that they were of the mind that being fat isn't an underlying cause of many illnesses. What you're referring to are the Generation Z tiktokers that will comment on videos of 600lb individuals twerking saying things like "you're healthy and fit just the way you are" or encourage people to continue eating the way they do under the guise of demonstrating how much they condemn fatphobia.

You're being a little too generous toward them though, because if you read their response they claimed that there's no causal link between obesity and health. That's just flat-out false. Obesity is linked to heart issues, Type II diabetes, joint issues, etc. (and that's a big "etc."). Hell, there's a reason why obese people were at greater risk of death from Covid than non-obese people. To say there's no causal link is unscientific and dangerous. All other things equal, it's better to not be obese.

This will be my last post on the matter though because I don't want to derail the thread.

[Anonymous User]

No-makeup woman from above here. It's undeniably true that I'd look prettier if I spent time putting on makeup, worrying about what hairstyles flattered me instead of just doing the easiest thing that passes muster as "professional," etc. Most women would. Most men probably would, too. I just ... don't care. If I'm going to put in that kind of effort, it will be for my SO at home, not for people I work with.

I have a wardrobe of appropriately professional clothes that fit comfortably, in colors that flatter me. My size fluctuates some, too, but that's not a huge issue if everything isn't skintight to begin with. I purposely chose day-to-day clothes that don't require ironing or dry cleaning. They get washed between wearings. I shower daily, and use deodorant. That's all most men do, and it's sufficient. If all of that means I leave some fashion points on the table, so be it. I'd rather have the time I save by not having to worry about any of it.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't do whatever makes them feel good about themselves. But I think it's helpful to keep in mind that men have many of the same issues. Plenty of men have bad skin, gain and lose weight, etc. Some are just plain unattractive, and nothing will change that. They just go on about their lives regardless. That's all anyone expects them to do, and it's probably the healthiest approach.

My basic rule for myself is that if men aren't expected to do something, I'm not going to do it without a good reason. "I want to because it will make me feel good about what I see in the mirror" is a good reason. "All the other women in my group do it" isn't. If all the other women in my group have different aesthetic preferences or priorities than I do, that's fine, but it's nothing to do with me, and it's not a reason for me to do anything differently. Conversely, if all the other women in my group are so insecure that the prospect of a colleague seeing them without lipstick terrifies them, then I'm sorry for them. But since I don't share that issue, me wearing lipstick wouldn't make me happier or make my life better, so I'm not going to do it.

Fellow female responding to this post. No makeup friend, way to go! I wish I had your courage when I worked in an office. I've only been able to go make up free / not straighten my frizzy hair since I work remotely now.

[Anonymous User]

No-makeup woman from above here. It's undeniably true that I'd look prettier if I spent time putting on makeup, worrying about what hairstyles flattered me instead of just doing the easiest thing that passes muster as "professional," etc. Most women would. Most men probably would, too. I just ... don't care. If I'm going to put in that kind of effort, it will be for my SO at home, not for people I work with.

I have a wardrobe of appropriately professional clothes that fit comfortably, in colors that flatter me. My size fluctuates some, too, but that's not a huge issue if everything isn't skintight to begin with. I purposely chose day-to-day clothes that don't require ironing or dry cleaning. They get washed between wearings. I shower daily, and use deodorant. That's all most men do, and it's sufficient. If all of that means I leave some fashion points on the table, so be it. I'd rather have the time I save by not having to worry about any of it.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't do whatever makes them feel good about themselves. But I think it's helpful to keep in mind that men have many of the same issues. Plenty of men have bad skin, gain and lose weight, etc. Some are just plain unattractive, and nothing will change that. They just go on about their lives regardless. That's all anyone expects them to do, and it's probably the healthiest approach.

My basic rule for myself is that if men aren't expected to do something, I'm not going to do it without a good reason. "I want to because it will make me feel good about what I see in the mirror" is a good reason. "All the other women in my group do it" isn't. If all the other women in my group have different aesthetic preferences or priorities than I do, that's fine, but it's nothing to do with me, and it's not a reason for me to do anything differently. Conversely, if all the other women in my group are so insecure that the prospect of a colleague seeing them without lipstick terrifies them, then I'm sorry for them. But since I don't share that issue, me wearing lipstick wouldn't make me happier or make my life better, so I'm not going to do it.

Makeup-tax ranter here. That's great. I'm thrilled you feel that way. I don't wear makeup or do my hair because the other women I work with do - I do it because I grew up from earliest childhood with messages that women should look a certain way in certain settings and makeup and styled hair is what you need to do in a professional setting, and it's hard to just go back and unlearn that. It doesn't help when, yes, everyone you work with wears makeup and styles their hair (like my sister never wears makeup or styles her hair for work, but her job has her doing physical labor all day and I wouldn't do makeup/hair in that setting either). Your lipstick example is funny because my mom never set foot out of the house without putting on lipstick.

The thing is, I'm not remotely trying to convince you that you should share any of my aesthetic preferences and start caring about hairstyles and lipstick. I'm honestly not. I'm just asking you to understand my preferences enough not to dismiss them entirely as rooted only in my personal neurosis or insecurity. (re: clothes - suits just suck balls when your size changes up and I am in court regularly, not just sitting in my office.) Like maybe everyone should feel the way that you do about it, but I don't think we live in that universe yet, and I don't think I'm crazy for saying that. My only problem with your perspective is that you seem to imply that I'm the problem.

[Anonymous User]

You're being a little too generous toward them though, because if you read their response they claimed that there's no causal link between obesity and health. That's just flat-out false. Obesity is linked to heart issues, Type II diabetes, joint issues, etc. (and that's a big "etc."). Hell, there's a reason why obese people were at greater risk of death from Covid than non-obese people. To say there's no causal link is unscientific and dangerous. All other things equal, it's better to not be obese.

This will be my last post on the matter though because I don't want to derail the thread.

The science around weight and health is actually way more complex and contested than that. But I won't pursue this further either b/c it is outside the scope of the thread.

[The Lsat Airbender]

You're being a little too generous toward them though, because if you read their response they claimed that there's no causal link between obesity and health. That's just flat-out false. Obesity is linked to heart issues, Type II diabetes, joint issues, etc. (and that's a big "etc."). Hell, there's a reason why obese people were at greater risk of death from Covid than non-obese people. To say there's no causal link is unscientific and dangerous. All other things equal, it's better to not be obese.

This will be my last post on the matter though because I don't want to derail the thread.

The science around weight and health is actually way more complex and contested than that. But I won't pursue this further either b/c it is outside the scope of the thread.

- Ceteris paribus, more weight literally puts a greater load on your joints. If strapping barbells to someone's body would be bad for their health (we know this is true because of what happens to soldiers' knees from all that rucking), then so is carrying extra fat.

- Having more flesh means a greater cardiovascular cross-section that your heart has to pump through. Fat storage therefore increases strain on your heart for literally no upside. Like the above, this is a simple mechanical consequence of carrying extra fat.

- Obstructive sleep apnea is an example of a specific health problem which is directly, unequivocally caused by the bodies of fat surrounding an obese person's airway. The weight literally weighs down on your neck and makes it harder to breathe while sleeping, which reduces the quality of sleep and therefore causes other health problems.

Then you've got the whole galaxy of problems caused by excess fat/cholesterol in your bloodstream, liver etc. which aren't precisely caused by obesity but which are directly aggravated by the primary causes of obesity (overeating and/or lack of exercise) so that causation/correlation is a distinction without difference.

Get your head out of the sand, dude. You can't confuse uncertainty about the degree and kind of obesity's deleterious effects for uncertainty about the existence of such problems. This is like climate change, except that 1) it will hit you sooner and much more acutely than climate change 2) it is within your power to prevent it.