Ugly? You May Have a Case.

Ugly? You May Have a Case

Most of us, regardless of our professed attitudes, prefer as customers to buy from better-looking salespeople, as jurors to listen to better-looking attorneys, as voters to be led by better-looking politicians, as students to learn from better-looking professors. This is not a matter of evil employers’ refusing to hire the ugly: in our roles as workers, customers and potential lovers we are all responsible for these effects.

How could we remedy this injustice?...

A more radical solution may be needed: why not offer legal protections to the ugly, as we do with racial, ethnic and religious minorities, women and handicapped individuals?

I performed 3 different searches but didn't find anything on this. Apologies if it has been posted.

So, this article proposes affirmative action for "ugly people". The problem is, of course, that "ugliness" is subjective. The "normal" reasons for affirmative action, sex, age, race, etc., are not.

This is quite ridiculous, but not for the reasons you may think I mean. Who is going to determine who is "ugly" enough for a job? Also, who really wants to fit in that mold? They will be reminded every day of their ugliness just by showing up to work. People that have been called "ugly" all of their life now have a chance to get a job, not because they are intelligent, not because they are skilled, but because they are exactly that thing they revile about themselves. That's really going to help their self-esteem!

And what about people that just "think" they're ugly? How many lawsuits would come about because this or that person wasn't "ugly enough" for a job? Is there a sliding scale? Can a "less ugly" person get a job over a "more ugly" person, as long as there are "ugly" people being hired?

This is political correctness run amok. This will kill many more opportunities than it creates, not to mention slowly killing, not only the self-esteem of the "ugly", but of the "beautiful" as well.

/TOA

i was just thinking the other day about ugliness. its a shame that we have to label things instead of just thinking of them as they are, and ugly people deffinetely have a harder time. what is ugly? how do we decide? i don't know, but i just realized i'm running out of time on the library's computer so i gotta go
good thread man, you got a good point there
peace out

What I want to know is; with American's sense of narcassism and self delusion, what type of person is really going to try to get themselves classified as belonging to this "protected calss"?

How many people can really admit that they are ugly enough to require special protections and who is going to be the judge?

Can you really imagine a mother taking her children down to some government office to get her kids officially registered as members of this protected class so she can sign up for benifits and special treatments and protections at school?

"C'mon yer honor, you can plainly see that my young'ens is all been smacked wit the ugly stick something fierce!"

This is a terrific idea (in this world). Defining ugly could be as easy as defining obese. Ugly is a lack of symmetry in the human face so through measurements (not unlike those done to people in the 1920's and 1930's before being ruined by those silly Fascists).

Then we could create a registry of ugly people, give them more rights, subsidize them -- and once the registry is completed eradicate them to clean up the genetic code. People should be white, blond, and symmetric.

[sarcasm of course]

reply to post by FortAnthem


Exactly my point, Anthem. Who in their right mind would want to stand there knowing they got that job because they were "too ugly" to otherwise? This wouldn't help anyone.

/TOA

Originally posted by ararisq
This is a terrific idea (in this world). Defining ugly could be as easy as defining obese. Ugly is a lack of symmetry in the human face so through measurements (not unlike those done to people in the 1920's and 1930's before being ruined by those silly Fascists).

Then we could create a registry of ugly people, give them more rights, subsidize them -- and once the registry is completed eradicate them to clean up the genetic code. People should be white, blond, and symmetric.

[sarcasm of course]

If everyone were the same we wouldn't have affirmative action. Which would mean we had nobody to feel sorry for, and politicians would have nobody to demogogue. We can't have that!

/TOA

Good gracious me! What a way to create even a bigger divide between what society deems "beautiful" and "ugly". This cannot be good in any context or for any reason.

Great - let humanity create a sliding scale for the purpose of identifying "exterior ugliness" and let humans then be categorized and rewarded for it. Affirmative action did not work in post-apartheid South Africa, so why should it work in a post-all-life-was-once-precious society?

Anyhows - all the world's most brilliant people (some of those who are deemed "nerdy") are usually considered to be "less attractive" than their polished-and-painted counterparts. Now - wouldn't it be a hoot if society's most brilliant are awarded jobs on an affirmative-action basis due to their apparent "lack of shine"?

Good thread. S+F

Does this mean that the next time some munter hits on me, she can sue me for ''aesthetic discrimination'' when I reject her advances ?

Seriously though, this is just another example of people hopping on the runaway PC train. No employer is going to cut off their nose to spite their face, so if you're good enough at what you do, you'll get employed, whether you're black, gay, female or if you've just got a face like you've been chasing parked cars.

reply to post by The Old American


Each to their own I suppose, but at the end of the day "ugliness" and a professional appearance are two different things...

The poster about symmetry is right. Attractiveness with it's symmetry is evolutionarily hardwired into the brain. someone who has length of the bone, good teeth, thick hair and a small waistline, which are universally desirable traits, generally.......Well, those mean that you are healthy and reproductively viable. When you look at people over 45, their waistline expands greatly, their hair thins, and the teeth seem shorter (opposite of "long in the tooth) relative to reproductive shutting down.

I myself.........have noticed that attractive people are smarter, opposite the "dumb blonde-type of jokes and stereotypes. Merely look at TV anchors like on The Weather Channel, and (I know) Fox News, those women didn't get to those positions because they had low IQs. No matter what your opinion is of what they present. Atractive men, which to me, as a strait woman, are -tall- -thin/fit- -pretty face- -plush hair- -good teeth- and a large cranium (big brain). Well, have you noticed that those ---predominantly--- populate white colar professional jobs such as, finance, politics, academia, medical Doctors, PHD Doctors, and lawyers. They meet and marry attractive intelligent women they met ---in college--- and beget their children with these lines of good genetics. Poverty makes you short and fat with a not really high IQ or sense of ambition, due to the lagging 'energy' level, due to bad physical and mental health genetics passed along through poverty and previous people's not smart decisions.
I know I wrote something that may come off to you all as a bitter pill and harsh 'medecine', but the above appears ---obvious-- to me, is all.

Can you imagine an employer trying to defend themselves in a court of law...

Employer: "we dispute the plaintiffs claim...we would like to enter into evidence Exhibit A; a list of ugly individuals currently employed with our company"...

"Exhibit A" would no doubt offend those people named within.

Originally posted by dingleberrysalad
i was just thinking the other day about ugliness. its a shame that we have to label things instead of just thinking of them as they are, and ugly people deffinetely have a harder time. what is ugly? how do we decide? i don't know, but i just realized i'm running out of time on the library's computer so i gotta go
good thread man, you got a good point there
peace out

Ugly is on the inside and it makes its way out but you must move or show some action and even speaking can bring it out. You can almost tell from a picture but the picture needs to come to life and start speaking before you can judge ugliness or not. Some people just get caught with an unflattering expression. The truly ugly will look that way anytime they are not posing with their mouths closed and nothing is coming out. Even the most literal you can see their ugliness in the words they say.

reply to post by simone50m


So does that mean that you would be OK with "ugly people" fitting into a protected class, and OK with them being called "ugly"?

/TOA

I have gotten to know people who were not very physically attractive...(in the beginning) but as I got to know them...with their attitudes, actions, character qualities, the way they treated others....they grew to be very beautiful to me.

Also...I have gotten to know very physically attractive people...(in the beginning) but as time went on I observed their selfishness, using of others without caring if they hurt the person, and their excessive self love and vanity...to me they ended up being very ugly.

People shouldn't judge just by physical looks in life....after all look at many of the serial killers....many of them were physically attractive.

I think there are some people and employers that are able to look beyond the physical appearance people were born with...and look at their education, experience, credentials. How well groomed and dressed they are...and their personality.

reply to post by caladonea


Ted Bundy rock on!

Not that I personally find men attractive or anything....

The effects are not small: one study showed that an American worker who was among the bottom one-seventh in looks, as assessed by randomly chosen observers, earned 10 to 15 percent less per year than a similar worker whose looks were assessed in the top one-third — a lifetime difference, in a typical case, of about $230,000.

Women in similar jobs as men make 15% less income on average. If "ugly" people can make less, surely women don't need any protection or improvement in salary either according to some posters logic. Seems somewhat contradictory and thought that should be pointed out.

no way to define what ugly is as a constant.

beauty is in the eye of the beholder... or where you find it... or something along those lines.

reply to post by The Old American


I think ugliness is on the inside. It describes a persons character better than their looks which are totally subjective.
Homeliness is on the outside though people overcome homeliness with other attributes to make up for it. A Porsche, large breasts, winning personality or a helpful nature. Sometimes you just have to hang with people who have poor eyes. Of course I am being absurd...If ugly is a handicap then thinning hair and flat chests are too.

reply to post by Death_Kron


In my experience, I have applied for positions being what is considered ugly ...when I am 20lbs plus overweight and when I was considered beautiful when I was not...both times dressed professionally and resume and experience did not alter... and more times than not when I am considered... so deemed beautiful.. I get the job. Not fair but it is what it is.

reply to post by The Old American

My view is, that poverty is whats causing people to be "ugly" (the image opposite of that found desirable by hardwiring) and bad mental and physical health show outwardly, which ---I think--- is caused by bad stress. Political correctness does not address and attack the fundamental root cause of what hurts masses of people.