The "Other" #MeToo that isn't covered - the issue that effects many more people

There is one thing that seems to have been conveniently swept under the rug with the #MeToo movement and that is all the people who have been adversely effected either in jobs, schools or other places/positions by a type of sexual discrimination. This isn't so much about the sex of the person being discriminated against, it is about the sexiness of the person. I've seen restaurants and bars which have many very qualified applicants for a position such as bar tender and for some odd reason, the person who gets the job doesn't even know a "Jack and Coke" is the same as "Whiskey and Coke" but the person who was hired had different qualifications such as wearing tight, low cut shirts and tight pants. This issue was very noticeable in college where some people seemed to get much more lee-way in test answers or in turning in assignments late. Where I went to school there were a few professors which were widely known to favor "pretty girls" who dressed provocatively and they seemed to be called into his office a few times a semester for "course guidance" while the "normal students" never got this kind of special treatment.

I would really like to know how many people have been effected by this type of special treatment over the years and I doubt that it effects one sex more than another and it isn't only one sex that benefits from this as well.

Also, when the way people dress is brought up in alleged sexual assault allegations or work place discrimination issues, and the person who either benefited from "priority" treatment or were on the receiving end of advancements, it would be completely untrue to say that the way a person dresses has nothing to do with these issues and not taking these things into consideration puts the "defense" in an unfair position (yet again).

We have all seen people get ready for dates and how they dress is specifically designed to convey a message about their interest in the other person. You don't see many people dressing up in sweat pants, track suits, or sweaters & snow pants when they are trying to be seductive on a date. They dress in a more provocative manner because they want to convey their inner intentions. To say that this doesn't translate to the work place or other social situations is being completely dishonest and is an attack to the social structure of any culture. This also puts those on the receiving end of these non-verbal messages at a distinct disadvantage as if they act upon them it seems a no-win and if they don't act on them they either miss an opportunity (which was between two consenting adults and not forced) or they may make an enemy by rejecting an advancement (we all know this is also an issue though rarely ever acknowledged because it would admit people are vindictive when turned down).


This doesn't just effect people applying for jobs but also those already in the work place. I'm sure many people have had a boss that favors another employee because they "like them" (often sexually attracted) and this can manifest in that person not having to do tasks they don't like or getting more breaks and an endless number of other possible benefits (like free food when working at restaurants when others have to pay). The problem with situations like this is it is often difficult to prove unless one of the parties admits to the unfair treatment and this is seldom done by the person in power (could cause legal issues) and also rarely done by the person receiving benefits b/c it would alienate them from co-workers among other things. It seems that issues like this are usually brought to light after a person leaves the employment and then the person receiving benefits is more likely to admit it (though they say they didn't see it at the time - usually).

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

People like attractive people. As a male who experiences that exact same thing, I can say that both females and other males treat me differently than others and are more likely to give me leeway in some circumstances (or allow me to have what I desire in opposition to their normal behavior).

30 rock did an episode about this referring to people like this as living in a bubble (and getting things most people don't).

Just don't assume it's only one-sided. It's a natural thing that people do, there are studies on this. And yes, restaurants want attractive people working there ---- because like I said, people have a natural response to attempt to attract the attracted and usually this means different behaviors (spending more is one effect in a restaurant).

I agree with the OP to a certain point, but I also know that a good looking girl with a good personality can boost sales in a party store. If that girl has a negative personality, it is bad for business though. The same thing goes for a young decent looking guy working at the party store or gas station, they need a good personality to go along with the looks.

It isn't so much about looks as personality but both good looks and good personality do exist in the same person a lot. The me to group seems to have negative personalities, wanting to shift blame for past messed up beliefs onto the other person. When I was a kid, good mothers would teach their daughters to beware of bosses that were trying to get favors for employment while other mothers pushed their kids to exploit using their looks to get ahead.

It is upbringing that is important, these sex hounds seem to be attracted to women who flaunt their looks or are trying to get ahead in the world using their looks. They do target some of the ones that are trying to just work their jobs and dress appropriately. It is a problem with our society, women who try to get to the top run into these kind of guys on their trek up the ladders. The behavior of flaunting your sexuality increases this attraction from the wrong people.

Think of this, women like high heals, they are bad for their feet and posture, they have become a status of sexuality and success. What group of women actually seem to wear high heals regularly, have you ever gone to a strip club? Increasing the sexy look does attract the wrong kind of guy more. That has been known for generations.

The problem is that these type of men are also attracted to innocence and friendliness, the young girls must be taught to avoid these kind of people in a society that touts sexy ad great. I think a woman who wear tennis shoes and bluejeans and who does not smell of perfume and has a pleasant personality is great. I do not like associating with women who wear high heals and clothes that emit the power push. I don't dislike them, just avoid them. Many of them are stuck up. An old seventies word.

Well I can say that the "personality" excuse/fallback that is all so often used in this topic is very often code word for physical discrimination. I can't see how some people can advocate for treating women as non-sexual objects in one breath, then in another use code words like "personality" (which often as ZERO to do with the job) to support their cause in the next breath. I've seen people with the personality of a door stop and maturity of a 9-10 year old get a job over a mature, qualified person. Often the "personality" ends up causing issues in the work place where their duties aren't completed or are done poorly because they know they got the job over someone more qualified and if they REALLY wanted the duties completed, they would have hired the other person, so it gives them an unspoken pass on slacking. The thing is, the job ads don't state "looking for window dressing who can attract customers", it says something like "bar tender needed to serve and interact with customers".

So do we just blow off the 50-80% of applicants who don't measure up to the looks of another less qualified applicant? Do we just waste their time applying, interviewing, etc? Do we just tell them "well too bad"? I guess it seems that we do and I think it is better that we are up front about this than to say it doesn't' exist. If this is in fact how things work, people using sexual "magnetism" to get jobs, then we have to overlook this issue when customers or bosses make advancements towards these people - I mean we can't have it both ways now can we? Can they only use their looks when it benefits them even when they are throwing out sexually charged signals (which are fake or are they?).?

It seems that some people, like the media, just don't want to cover things like this, maybe that is because they may be the ones who benefit the most from this issue. I for one would much rather listen to an "ugly" (only using that as a relative description - not a personal judgement) talking head on FOX or MSNBC that was smart and insightful than some air head that makes ridiculous points and can't connect dots.

This is starting to sound like more social justice whining.

Ugly girls don't get jobs at Hooters. But they can get jobs as accountants. Life sucks. Deal with what you've got.

a reply to: starviego

More like pointing out hypocritic behavior and how society seems to be ok with one kind of discrimination but not others. SJW has been a thing for a long time and I'd say about 90% of the population didn't really care much about it until it started to get ridiculous and now some people see the hypocrisy and agenda behind it. The difference between the repugnant SJW's and what I did is I'm not calling for people's jobs or livelihood to be destroyed or to be prosecuted. There is a major difference and those that don't see that probably have an agenda.

a reply to: schuyler

can you change your avatar? I wonder how many people have nightmares b/c of that thing, lol

The reason I brought this up is because the whole "metoo" thing is an extension of this specific topic, and as such shows how much this topic effects society and IF people were truly interested in a fair society, this would have been brought up a long time ago. It seems that the women who claimed "MeToo" were often "good looking" (at least by some standards) and many were accused of provocative dress. I'm wondering how much coverage these people would have gotten if they weren't so camera friendly or if they would have even been in a position to complain (would they even been hired) if they weren't as attractive or dressed as provocatively (not all, but those who did for work). The "metoo" covered by the media is but a microcosm of the larger issue which they managed to sweep under the carpet. Why is that?

originally posted by: starviego
This is starting to sound like more social justice whining.

You mean like unattractive people who resent attractive people just because they are attractive?

It happens.

"Don't hate me because I'm beautiful." Remember that commercial, with Kelly Le Brock?

Yeah, it happens. I've seen it more often in women than men. It's probably unfair for attractive people to be treated differently just because they are attractive, but no more unfair than an unattractive person resenting someone just because they are attractive.

It's not likely to change, though, and in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't really matter if it's actually "Fair".

"Fairness" is an illusion, just like "Equality", and "Security".

originally posted by: schuyler
Ugly girls don't get jobs at Hooters. But they can get jobs as accountants. Life sucks. Deal with what you've got.

The problem is the majority of people aren't "Ugly" ... many people dont know how to make them selfs look pretty but most who would be considered ugly have the ability to make them selfs more ateactive.... different cloths, work out even just a little, make up, tanning, new hairstyle and di on.

I go to Hotters a very few weeks with a buddy of mine.... just for the wings and twofer. The women run the gambit on appearance, size and proportion and I'd say very few if any would be considered for a modeling career. But since they are all wearing skimpy clothing they are all attractive... its the clothing more so than the girls themselves.

I've heard myths and rumors that police sometimes give something called a "verbal warning" for minor traffic violations.

Not having breasts, I can't say that I've ever seen proof or evidence of such "verbal warnings" actually existing.

All I know is that being respectful, and allowing them to search my vehicle upon request (there's never anything of interest to find) has never resulted in personal experience with these mythical "verbal warnings".

Does that count?

#OtherMeToo

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

I've seen restaurants and bars which have many very qualified applicants for a position such as bar tender and for some odd reason, the person who gets the job doesn't even know a "Jack and Coke" is the same as "Whiskey and Coke"

I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks a Jack and Coke is the same as a Whiskey and Coke needs their cognitive process re-evaluated.
IMHO, of course.

a reply to: MteWamp

"Fairness" is an illusion, just like "Equality", and "Security".

originally posted by: DanDanDat

I go to Hotters a very few weeks with a buddy of mine.... just for the wings and twofer.

The women run the gambit on appearance, size and proportion and I'd say very few if any would be considered for a modeling career. But since they are all wearing skimpy clothing they are all attractive... its the clothing more so than the girls themselves.

Your 'analysis' of my quick joke reminds me of another one featuring the engineering profession. One engineer rolls up on a bicycle. Another engineer asks him how he got it. The first one says, "I was out walking in the park and this woman peddles up on this bike, rips off all her clothes, and says, "Take what you want!"

"Good choice," says the other. "The clothes probably wouldn't have fit you anyway."

originally posted by: DigginFoTroof
a reply to: schuyler

can you change your avatar? I wonder how many people have nightmares b/c of that thing, lol

Thank you. I was afraid it wasn't working.

Good looking people will always have the upper hand in social situations.
That has been true since the beginning of the species.
They radiate health, thus good genes and become A-list for prospective mates.
It's built in biologically and not anything new.
Thank God as we have enough new problems to deal with.

originally posted by: starviego
This is starting to sound like more social justice whining.

Yep, the next will be banning attractive people because they hurt the feewings of plain or ugly people. Oh, the horror lol

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

I live in a tourist area of the UK, the busiest bars and clubs have the classic 'best' looking people working there. It's human nature, people like to be served by hot people, that will never change no matter how many people whine on the internet.
If I ran a bar I wouldn't hire someone old or below a standard of what I deem most people consider attractive.

Looks make a massive difference when accompanied with good eye contact and friendly personality.
I was hot when I was younger and used it to better my life through flirting or even slutting myself out. I'm a guy. I'm of a similar standard of hotness in my current age group, but my personality, genuine smile, and eye contact has always been a winner.

Life ain't fair, and you can only farm the land you've got.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

job doesn't even know a "Jack and Coke" is the same as "Whiskey and Coke"

Well technically they are not the same. JD is made from corn while whisky is made from barley.

I'm gonna grab a lagavulin and contemplate the remainder of your post.

Sometimes it comes down to self-care. There definitely is a prejudice against the really obese-or if they smell or dress poorly.

It isn't fair. Attractiveness is in the eye of the beholder. Some average or below average looking people have more intelligence, talent or "personality." Hard to explain Rachel Maddow, or additionally SNL Rachel Dratch. Both are highly intelligent but not at all attractive nor great personalities.

I do beieve it is true in many circumstances not focusing on sexual attractiveness and more on intelligence and a pleasant personality can carry a person in directions they had rather pursue than be known only for their looks. I doubt trying to get by on looks alone will carry one up the ladder.

originally posted by: DigginFoTroof
, the person who gets the job doesn't even know a "Jack and Coke" is the same as "Whiskey and Coke"

Which makes them more qualified than you, because they're not the same thing, trust me, I'm a Scotsman who has worked in a proper Wiskey Bar

I've also been a licensee and as such I had a balanced staff, men and women, honestly I would be lying if I said looks had anything to do with the hiring of my staff, I only hired experienced bar staff. That being said not everyone who runs clubs and bars is the same and I know 2 owners off the top of my head who prefer looks over ability. They had problems with their staff I didn't, like having to sack them because they couldn't get the hang of pouring pints and were unreliable