Monday, August 29, 2011

Should Ugly People get Affirmative Action?

"Hell,no!" I thought, as I read a post on this topic at Amy Alkon's blog but unfortunately, economist Daniel Hamermesh, author of a new book, Beauty Pays: Why Attractive People Are More Successful thinks otherwise. In an article in the New York Times, he states:
Beauty is as much an issue for men as for women. While extensive research shows that women’s looks have bigger impacts in the market for mates, another large group of studies demonstrates that men’s looks have bigger impacts on the job.

Why this disparate treatment of looks in so many areas of life? It’s a matter of simple prejudice....

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.

I noticed that some bloggers were arguing about whether or not ugly people have it so bad, but that's not really the point. The more important point here is that every time some overly-dramatic academic comes up with a "theory," they run to get the government involved as a "solution" --almost always making the problem worse. It's no wonder we are in such financial and moral trouble these days.


Blogger Dr.Alistair said...

yeah. if all the other "groups" necessitate affirmative action, then ugly people sure do. nobody wants to hire quasimodo unless it's illegal not to.

i noticed on the blog link you put in your post an article about it suggests that women will shop themselves for the best price, and that guys are idiots.


12:15 PM, August 29, 2011  
Blogger Zorro said...

If ugly people are going to get affirmative action, then Hillary Clinton will be at the front of the line.

12:53 PM, August 29, 2011  
Blogger Acksiom said...

Meanwhile, over a million innocent children are sexually mutilated in this country every year so that old women can have cheaper anti-wrinkle face cream.

But "ugly people" NEEEEED "affirmative action".

12:55 PM, August 29, 2011  
Blogger Zorro said...

"Meanwhile, over a million innocent children are sexually mutilated in this country every year so that old women can have cheaper anti-wrinkle face cream."

I shudder to ask, but WTF R U talking about?!

1:04 PM, August 29, 2011  
Blogger Dr.Alistair said...


1:45 PM, August 29, 2011  
Blogger Dunkelzahn4prez said...

Harrison Bergeron, please pick up the nearest courtesy phone. Harrison Bergeron, to the nearest courtesy phone. Thank you.

3:06 PM, August 29, 2011  
Blogger Acksiom said...

WTF i'm talking about:

Keep in mind that if this were innocent little baby girls, we would be talking about:

1, amputating most to all of the inner labia and clitoral hood of innocent little babies, and then

2, stripping out a ring of the frontmost inner vaginal skin of innocent little babies, and then

3, forcing the two raw edges of vaginal skin of innocent little babies to roughly and randomly seal together under thousands of pounds of clamped force, and then

4, selling these perfectly normal, healthy, functional body parts from innocent little babies to manufacturers of dubious hair-restoration "tonics" for old men.

Circumcision is ignorant sexist bigotry. Don't want to agree? Then it's YOUR responsibility to explain why the normal default rules and standards of both law and professional ethics for amputation should ONLY not apply to the male prepuce.

Why should this special, unique, extraordinary exception to the normal default rules and standards be allowed?

Why should the government be allowed to discriminate against little boys like this?

3:31 PM, August 29, 2011  
Blogger Todd said...

I would mark this down as yet another thing bored lawyers are looking at to fill their idle hours. If they can create yet another "special" group to protect, think of all of the money!

So what would happen? Anyone that thinks they are ugly would go before a grading board to be assigned an "ugly quotient" and if they rate ugly enough, be in the class and subject to special protections?

I have a secret for you, life is not fair. Some are born smart, some stupid, some pretty and some not so. Some get lucky and some do not. Even to the best, sometimes s**t happens. I wish people would stop trying to jam everyone into the same cookie cutter mold and make everyone the same. I just get so tired of the PC BS.

4:16 PM, August 29, 2011  
Blogger Doom said...

True, about academics and "government" solutions. I think communists tried that, and still do in some places. But even putting that aside my problem is this, attractive people are the vast minority. Any bonuses they get are due to their minority status, not because of a majority of numbers.

As well, this completely ignores the negatives attractive people deal with. Women are hit on constantly, even with a ring on the finger that should forbid it. And, actually, whatever passes for attractive to a woman's eye, those guys have constant feminine attention. Some don't even have to be handsome. :) Anyway, foolishness from start to finish.

I take it the author is in the majority. Ha! Tell him to pick up a gaming system and join the rest of the get-nones. Even if he is married, those types often marry cold fish and then don't know how to use the defrost cycle on their native equipment package. :p

10:12 PM, August 29, 2011  
Blogger The Sen. said...

If we were ever going to ban a word it should be minority. Be it black, Asian, native American, ugly, white, purple, gay, straight, whatever It is just dividing us more and more.

10:40 PM, August 29, 2011  
Blogger DADvocate said...

Eventually, everyone will be on affirmative action, which will be the effective end of it. Let's just go ahead hurry progress and end it.

Personally, I think someone owes me a few hundred thousand because my teeth are crooked and my parents never got me braces although they could have easily afforded them.

11:23 PM, August 29, 2011  
Blogger Doom said...


I seriously think you could sue your parents, if they have a home, savings, or even a decent retirement other than SS. I wouldn't recommend it. Something biblical about how children and parents should interact, and, well, they did feed you and whatnot enough for you to survive to escape. Given the world today, regarding parenting, I have to think that wasn't too bad. Still, should you think you aren't in the will, and money is your issue, you could sue and very possibly win. More so if they are already passed and only an estate remains.

12:24 AM, August 30, 2011  
Blogger DADvocate said...

Doom - I blame society. Society shouldn't let parents not get their kids braces. ;)

My mom's still alive and kicking at 86.

12:29 AM, August 30, 2011  
Blogger DADvocate said...

"If you wanna be happy
For the rest of your life,
Never make a pretty woman your wife,
So from my personal point of view,
Get an ugly girl to marry you."

12:33 AM, August 30, 2011  
Blogger br549 said...

Equal outcome. Make the bar so low, no one will come in under it because it is already laying on the ground. The only color will be grey. A republic, a nation of laws. All turned and used against us day by day and bureaucrats with permanent protected union jobs will be running things.

Upside down and inside out. That's the way we are going. It does not make a particle of sense to me. In an almost Biblical sense, I am more and more just in this world, but not a part of it more than is absolutely necessary. I guess I'm suffering climate change mental illness.

5:37 AM, August 30, 2011  
Blogger SGT Ted said...

So, are we to call them "Uglo-Americans"?

Or, maybe "People of Ugly"?

8:59 AM, August 30, 2011  
Blogger SGT Ted said...

Ugly people only have it bad when coupled with rank stupidity.

9:00 AM, August 30, 2011  
Blogger Locomotive Breath said...

To even the playing field, maybe we should make better looking people pay reparations. Force them to go to an inferior barber or hairstylist. Better yet, let's force them to wear a "fat suit" or undergo an operation to "ugly" them up.

9:05 AM, August 30, 2011  
Blogger DADvocate said...

SGT Ted - Aesthetically Challenged may be the proper term, although I like Uglo-Americans. But, that could get tricky. Would an ugly black person be called an Uglo-African-American?

9:06 AM, August 30, 2011  
Blogger DADvocate said...

LB - If we do all that, everyone will know that underneath it all, these people are attractive (except for the operation alternative) and they will continue to enjoy the advantage. See someone in a hideous fat suit? You know underneath it all they're incredibly hot.

9:18 AM, August 30, 2011  
Blogger Peregrine John said...

Acksiom, just because the same word is applied to different things does not mean that it is suddenly the same thing. "Female circumcision" is a euphemism that in males is called "emasculation". But I suspect you knew already that your argument is specious and deceptive (in a pathetic and transparent sort of way), just as you probably know that the topic has nothing to do with either botox or ugliness. You are, in short, an ass. I will not be reading or responding to anything you have further to say, so for the general good of society, I enjoin you to not bother.

To return from the attempted hijacking, there is a perfectly brilliant German word for things which are supposed to make improvements but instead make them worse: schlimbesserung. Applies to pretty much every governmental meddling, ever.

10:47 AM, August 30, 2011  
Blogger J. Bowen said...

Who determines who is and isn't ugly? Will some EEOC board have the final say? Will a jury of twelve (or nine or six, depending on your state if it's a civil case) have the final say? Will a single judge have the final say? And how does one determine the effect that one's appearance relative to another person's has on earnings?

11:30 AM, August 30, 2011  
Blogger Unknown said...

Sorry I'm late to the discussion, I was sitting around fantasizing that job/economic disbursements for the ugly could be made retroactive. Nice to dream about the big benefits that would be coming my way.

2:36 PM, August 30, 2011  
Blogger Unknown said...

But yet...... I am not an animal!

2:39 PM, August 30, 2011  
Blogger TMink said...

If ugly people have it so bad how come Lyle Lovett was boinking Julia Roberts?


3:49 PM, August 30, 2011  
Blogger Dr.Alistair said...

trey, julia roberts look like her brother, except on him it works.

5:17 PM, August 30, 2011  
Blogger tomcal said...

I don't know, it may be true in the fashion or media industries; but if I need to hire someone with real expertise in an area of the law, accounting, engineering, etc., I don't care how ugly they are.

The opposite can also be true. The effective executive assistant I ever had was one of the most beautiful women I've ever met, and I got a lot of heat for hiring her. Many said she was "too pretty" and that people would begin to question my judgement because of it. They were proved wrong.

2:06 AM, September 05, 2011  
Blogger tomcal said...

Correction: ...the most effective...

2:07 AM, September 05, 2011  

Post a Comment

<< Home