Posted on 09/06/2011 7:11:34 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Some might consider it an ugly truth that attractive people are often more successful than those less blessed with looks.
But now our appearance is emerging in legal disputes as a new kind of discrimination.
‘Lookism’, it is claimed, is the new racism, and should be banished from civilised societies.
It is currently the subject of several court actions in America, and some experts say similar cases should be considered here too.
Economist Daniel Hamermesh argues that ugliness is no different from race or a disability, and suggests unattractive people deserve legal protection.
‘My research shows being good-looking helps you earn more money, find a higher-earning spouse and even get better deals on mortgages,’ he said.
‘Some people are born ugly and there’s not much they can do about it. You’re pretty much stuck with your looks.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
So does the same old, same old apply? i.e. Women and minorities hardest hit.
I know that feminists are adversely affected.
In a way, I almost WANT our culture to collapse so it will have lost its power to micro-manage us.
This whole “discovery” is nothing of the sort. I’ve known about it since I was a kid. It is how life works. People choose to befriend, like, dislike, hire, and do business with people for all sorts of superficial reasons. It is how humans work. Women are seen as women first, and humans second, as are men. Young people are seen as young people first, and people second. Old people, black people, fat people, ugly people, disabled people (and any combination thereof) are seen as that attribute first, and “people” second.
It is not only how humans “roll”, but it is something the constitution protects (freedom of association). Is it unfair? There’s that word again. It is pretty meaningless because life is unfair if it is anything. But we all play the cards God gave us because this life is a very, VERY temporary thing. It’s not what you have that counts. It’s what you do with it.
The only time the word “fair” has any meaning is when the Bible tells judges to judge “fairly”. And I believe that is the only context in which it is ever used in the bible. “Fair” is just way too subjective. We are all treated unfairly in one way or another on a daily, if not hourly basis.
These “utopians” need to get over it. They are like a bunch of kids that discovered how the world works and don’t like it one bit. They’ll have to change human beings to make it stick, and I believe the eugenics thing died a horrible death with the defeat of the Nazis.
We are as God made us and will be until the day of Christ’s return. So lets play fair. :)
it’s the Marxists goal to make everything illegal. Not because they intend to prosecute everything, but so they have the option to prosecute whomever they wish, whenever they wish.
I telecommute. I work with people who telecommute. I have never seen 99% of my coworkers, or of the trainees I’m coaching. Some of them still try to claim discrimination when I give them warnings about their attendance or job performance.
Equal rights for Uglo-Americans!
Good looks can bring more bucks to a business. A pretty barmaid for example will surely attract more customers than a Helen Thomas lookalike.
a new method to discriminate against middle class, professionals, and the rich.
Very interesting! Explains what we see with the union thug parades, the dem rallys, dem convention . . interesting. Compare with a Tea Party rally or the republican convention, etc. . The 'cleanup' afterwards, etc.
Last new job I got required 2 interviews - both by phone.
My new boss had no idea what I looked like.
Your comment is a real hoot.
i think that appearance is judged because it’s (an inaccurate) subconscious gauge of health.
If one really analyses what makes a person attractive, it’s a good body weight, muscle tone (connotates activity and energy), clear skin (lack of infection, organs functioning properly), good teeth, shiny hair, etc.
An ugly person will be asymmetrical (something went wrong during development), have dull or thin hair (hormones and/or nutrition are off), have bad skin (organs not functioning properly), be overweight (too sick to move properly) or underweight (not an effective hunter), have poor posture (bad bones or muscles), etc.
I think that people are naturally drawn to good health and naturally steer away from signs of disease.
The best remedy is to take care of yourself as best as you can. A healthy person that isn’t necessarily attractive can become attractive with good health. (Arnold Schwarzenegger comes to mind.)
This is a version of the "equality of opportunity" doctrine.On this basis, libtards feel free to advocate enlarging the power and size of big government to achieve the confiscation of inheritances, public education through the postgraduate level, and laws preventing private discrimination of the basis not only of such factors as race, religion or national origin, but also age, medical condition, and physical handicap.
What they evade is that one's destiny depends one's free will and the choices he makes, and that the right choices can overcome any disadvantages he may have due to nature or nurture.
And the dress? One slobster had a sweater that was too small and his shirt tail and sleeves were hanging out. He looked like a blind drunk dressed him. Or it might be the guy is wearing one of those shapeless hooded sweat shirts and some sort of knit hat pulled down over his ears with strands of hair sticking out.
What is this? The slobification of the country?
“a new kind of discrimination”
Not new. Newly badmouthed, yes. Describing it as such reminds me of someone saying of the olden days (and I paraphrase) “That was back when racism wasn’t bad.” Fuzzy thinking, that.
By the way, discrimination is not bad persay. Ever heard of “discriminating taste”? Faddish opposition to “lookism,” in addition to the false parallel to racism (which shouldn’t be forbidden either, in my opinion, but that’s another matter), is based on the idea that it’s irrational, and futhermore just plain wrong. Well, it’s not irrational. It’s good sense. There are actual benefits to employing, befriending, romancing, and otherwise associating with attractive people.
Shut up, rabble rousers.
“Some people are born ugly and there’s not much they can do about it.”
So what? Some people are born short, slow, blind, deaf, and stupid. Does that somehow mean people must be forced to turn their brains off and deal with them as if they were Generic Human?
“Is it really just random chance that every single one of the major network anchors is extremely attractive?”
I think the argument is not that Fox News is being irrational. Of course we know the cast hot babes for the sake of ratings. The problem is that the ratings are based on the audience’s irrational desire to see attractive people. Like how the owner of a diner could have refused to hire blacks because his white customers wouldn’t want to be served by them. It’s a stupid argument, I know, but so it goes.
For the record, I say whites should be able to refuse to hire blacks all they want. It’s their property. If it is, that is; if it’s not it’s another argument. Discrimination didn’t seem to permanently hurt Jews, Italians, Irish, Germans, various Asians, etc. And legally enforced color-blind non-discrimination has been a documented and notorious failure as regards the heavily “underclassed” blacks. So much so that large underground rivers of racism are theorized to persist, despite the inarguable decline of liminal racism.
Hell of a lot of good (non-governmental) anti-discrimination has done us, even assuming it’s right.
Being ugly isn’t always a liability, because ugly people are naturally smarter than pretty people.
For example, ask a beautiful woman what the world is like, and she’ll tell you the whole world is full of opportunities, adventure, and wonderful people that would do anything for her. Then at about 35 her whole reality starts to take a little shift.
Ugly people come out of the womb knowing the world is populated by a**holes. They can hide or they can overcome, but rose colored glasses have they none.
Some people are born homely but appear attractive; ugliness is self-generated, like character.
“It’s meant to ensure the most talented players win the audition, not necessarily the most attractive or those who can pull strings.”
I can understand this if it’s a symphony meant solely for recording, but are these musicians expected to play in front of audiences? If so, then why not allow yourself to be “biased”? Not that it should be the only criteria, but it would be stupid to divorce the age old marriage between attractiveness and the performing arts just because ugly people (most often commedians) can be successful.
Then again, you said it was only for the first round. Still, it seems like a long way to go to avoid a very useful bias. I’ll bet it was motivated by some misguided abstract principles rather than any noticeable lack of talent.
“because ugly people are naturally smarter than pretty people”
Depends on what you mean by “smart.” Shaper perhaps, and definitely better educated. But I’d assume inborn intelligence is equally divided amongst the ugly and beautiful.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.