NYT Op-ED: Should there be affirmative action for the ugly?

Status
Not open for further replies.
BEING good-looking is useful in so many ways.

In addition to whatever personal pleasure it gives you, being attractive also helps you earn more money, find a higher-earning spouse (and one who looks better, too!) and get better deals on mortgages. Each of these facts has been demonstrated over the past 20 years by many economists and other researchers. 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.

How could we remedy this injustice? With all the gains to being good-looking, you would think that more people would get plastic surgery or makeovers to improve their looks. Many of us do all those things, but as studies have shown, such refinements make only small differences in our beauty. All that spending may make us feel better, but it doesn’t help us much in getting a better job or a more desirable mate.

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?

We actually already do offer such protections in a few places, including in some jurisdictions in California, and in the District of Columbia, where discriminatory treatment based on looks in hiring, promotions, housing and other areas is prohibited. Ugliness could be protected generally in the United States by small extensions of the Americans With Disabilities Act. Ugly people could be allowed to seek help from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and other agencies in overcoming the effects of discrimination. We could even have affirmative-action programs for the ugly.

For purposes of administering a law, we surely could agree on who is truly ugly, perhaps the worst-looking 1 or 2 percent of the population. The difficulties in classification are little greater than those faced in deciding who qualifies for protection on grounds of disabilities that limit the activities of daily life, as shown by conflicting decisions in numerous legal cases involving obesity.

Economic arguments for protecting the ugly are as strong as those for protecting some groups currently covered by legislation. So why not go ahead and expand protection to the looks-challenged?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/28/opinion/sunday/ugly-you-may-have-a-case.html?_r=2

Just a note, this is not a troll article, the author is an economics professor at UT Austin and has a book about ugly/attractive people coming out this month.

The very idea that we could stratify the population by looks is borderline absurd. We'd have to hire "aesthetic" panels to impartially judge people for this "disability." And for many people, ugliness overlaps with other medical conditions or poor hygiene.
 
rADj0.jpg
 
sfedai0 said:
Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.....or in this case, the lawmakers.

The author covers this. Apparently, on a 5 point scale, very few observers generally rate people by a difference of more than a point. You'd still need a sample size of hundreds to get over selection bias (ie, people who don't like blacks, people who don't like blondes, people who don't like beards, etc.).

MetatronM said:
We don't already stratify the population by looks?

Touche. I mean, legally stratify the population by looks. Like, you have to go down to the DMV, get your ugly license, and put your ugly identification number down when filling out a job application or a FAFSA.
 
The very idea that we could stratify the population by looks is borderline absurd.
but...we do...

See, this is one of those things. If we accept that the statistics are true then we accept that physical looks result in some people being treated unfairly. Then how do we differentiate being treated 'unfairly" for that cause from being treated unfairly for other reasons like race or sexual orientation?
 
Last year I worked for Carvel and the only guys they had working were tall and thin. I never seen a fat guy working.
 
Because when you think about it this is about the broader issue of if we think its the job of the government and/or civilization in general to try and ensure that everyone has access to the same opportunities regardless of disadvantage.
 
Bluth said:
Who would want to admit they were ugly?

I have NO problem whatsoever conceding that I'm ugly as sin. When I walk down the street little ladies immediately cross to the other side. I ask strangers what time it is and they just throw their wallets at me and run screaming.

Fortunately, I can actually have a conversation with the opposite sex and despite looking like a medieval gargoyle my confidence is through the fucking roof.

No problem w/ jobs, interviews or women.
 
The_Technomancer said:
but...we do...

See, this is one of those things. If we accept that the statistics are true then we accept that physical looks result in some people being treated unfairly. Then how do we differentiate being treated 'unfairly" for that cause from being treated unfairly for other reasons like race or sexual orientation?

Things like age, nationality, sexual orientation, race, and religion are entirely objective though.

Obviously beauty and/or physical prowess is an asset in some areas of employment.

I've always been baffled how people get upset that Hooters, or their local cheer squad, or the local bar, generally hire attractive looking women. They hire attractive looking women because people like looking at and chatting with attractive looking women, and they will be more willing to tip well and return to the restaurant to continue ogling those attractive looking women.

No one wants to hire a customer service rep who stutters.

No one wants to be protected by one-legged beat cops.

No one wants halftime dancers with jelly roll stomachs.

Sometimes, being good looking and physically able literally makes you the best candidate for the job.

Proving that you're objectively ugly is difficult enough, but then proving that it is preventing you from landing merit-based employment is even tougher. Wouldn't they then have to measure everyone at the company? What is an appropriate good-looking to ugly ratio? Are only the legally ugly protected under this new kind of statute? I just think we have way too many problems to give this any serious thought.
 
Mammoth Jones said:
I have NO problem whatsoever conceding that I'm ugly as sin. When I walk down the street little ladies immediately cross to the other side. I ask strangers what time it is and they just throw their wallets at me and run screaming.
Ugly_Bob.jpg
 
How do you objectify ugliness?

Although I have to admit I usually discriminate against fat and ugly people. There are no other groups I can say that about. They are the only two I have preconceived notions about: basic lack of hygiene, personal self-worth, diet, and habits. I'm not talking about people born with birth defects like cleft lips or anything, but (for example) people who are chain smokers that don't care of their teeth and have yellowed mouths are appalling to me.

Having been disfigured in an accident is also not something I hold against people in regards to looks. But there are some genetic things I will avoid people for. Severe acne, say. I went to high school with a kid who had such bad acne puss and blood used to run down his face in class. He was hideous. I realize people like that have drawn the short stick, but jesus people take care of yourselves.
 
Sho_Nuff82 said:
Touche. I mean, legally stratify the population by looks. Like, you have to go down to the DMV, get your ugly license, and put your ugly identification number down when filling out a job application or a FAFSA.

I doubt anyone is advocating such a thing.

It's probably just another course of action Employees can take if they feel wronged based on their looks rather than their ability to work. It would work on a case by case basis.
 
This is Darwinism at work though. If you're ugly you will live a hard life, die younger, and will be less likely to pass on your genetic ugliness to the next generation. As members of the human race we all want this, right? We all want our future to be free of the unsightly blemish of ugliness. Nature must take it's course now otherwise when we join the galactic community we won't be taken seriously.

I didn't make the rules of life. As I see it we've been floating the ugly people amongst us for far too long, they're holding us back. You ever see an ugly tiger? No, they're all georgeous and we love them for it. They weened the ugly out of tiger tribes in the stone ages. The only ugly tigers you see are the retarded ones that were born in a zoo.

Everyone knows in their hearts that ugly isn't right. It's wrong!
 
UltimaPooh said:
I doubt anyone is advocating such a thing.

It's probably just another course of action Employees can take if they feel wronged based on their looks rather than their ability to work. It would work on a case by case basis.
The author of the article is advocating such a system for the bottom 1-2% of the ugliness scale.
 
Sho_Nuff82 said:
The author of the article is advocating such a system for the bottom 1-2% of the ugliness scale.

No he is not.

That's just for classification on a case by case basis in the court of law, which is where something like this would go. It's similar to being discriminated against based on race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation rather than your work ethic.

Ugly people are just as capable of doing work as good looking people. Probably better at work than good looking people too.
 
The only affirmative action that needs to be done is negative affirmative action for people who write stupid articles like this guy. He should have his wages cut.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom