Last form of permissible discrimination

[ihatecats2014]

Law, now, has put into legal writ that no one shall be discriminated against based on sexual orientation, race, age, and creed. All for but one state, (california only in SF and 6 more counties), a form of discrimination that is still held as a taboo social practice in the place of work, education, and more prominently in social functions.

What am i talking about? you might be able to guess that it is the discrimination of the homely.

Very very interesting expositions on this form of discrimination can be found here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/20/AR2010052002298.html

http://www.euronet.nl/users/bc/engels/uglys.htm

My question is: do you unconsciously bracket or marginalize your fellow peers that are physically unsightly? I hate that lookcism is perceived to be a social norm and is accepted as apart of our society. I do not think looks are a very good indicator of intelligence or competence. This could be seen by the contrast of the prevalent subjective attractiveness of students in any particular engineering college to say a more formal liberal arts institute. This is a very very broad generalization and should not be taken to offend.

Do you think discrimination against the ugly is irrational? and should government step in and eliminate the 'last bastion for discrimination'?
and have you ever been a witness to such a discrimination?

 

[cronxeh]

Well, as a beautiful person, I feel pity towards the less fortunate among us. However, I do not treat them any more differently. I have been known, on an inebriated occasion, to take one for the team so to speak, and indulge the senses by dating an ugly woman or two. Without the bitter, the sweet ain't as sweet.

 

[JaredJames]

Any discrimination, especially for that shown in your post is dreadful.

However, it isn't the last form of acceptable discrimination:

In the UK, we have 'faith' schools (religious). They are controlled by whichever religious group runs them and thanks to laws from many years ago, their curriculum is self regulated and excluded from inspection by the government agency responsible for state schools. The laws were put in place to give these rights to the schools as they (at the time) received funding from the various religious groups, but now they receive only government funding (taxpayers) and yet they maintained the benefits of the laws giving them control.

The problem is, these schools get to pick and choose which children get to attend them based on which religion they and their parents practice.
They are within their rights to refuse entry (entrants are chosen by a board of governors and not by government regulations as with state schools). Put simply, if you aren't a practising catholic, you aren't allowed to attend the school (despite claims made that they accept non-religious children).
This has led to a number of parents pretending to practice a certain religion to get their children into either a) a better school, b) a school closer to their home.
Now how is it fair that these schools which are funded by the government are allowed to discriminate against, of all things, children based on their parents religion.

That my friend, is 'acceptable' discrimination!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_school#Issues_about_faith_schools_in_the_UK

 

[Proton Soup]

well, if you are too pretty, i might be inclined to think you are pretty dumb. unfair, i know.

as for the other extreme, mental deficits actually are often correlated with certain facial features. down syndrome and fetal alcohol syndrome being a couple of the more common ones. perhaps there are more.

 

[lisab]

Law, now, has put into legal writ that no one shall be discriminated against based on sexual orientation, race, age, and creed. All for but one state, (california only in SF and 6 more counties), a form of discrimination that is still held as a taboo social practice in the place of work, education, and more prominently in social functions.

What am i talking about? you might be able to guess that it is the discrimination of the homely.

Very very interesting expositions on this form of discrimination can be found here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/20/AR2010052002298.html

http://www.euronet.nl/users/bc/engels/uglys.htm

My question is: do you unconsciously bracket or marginalize your fellow peers that are physically unsightly? I hate that lookcism is perceived to be a social norm and is accepted as apart of our society. I do not think looks are a very good indicator of intelligence or competence. This could be seen by the contrast of the prevalent subjective attractiveness of students in any particular engineering college to say a more formal liberal arts institute. This is a very very broad generalization and should not be taken to offend.

Do you think discrimination against the ugly is irrational? and should government step in and eliminate the 'last bastion for discrimination'?
and have you ever been a witness to such a discrimination?

I'm not offended by your comment I bolded; but I do think it's incorrect. Do you have anything to substantiate that claim?

OK, just for the sake of argument, let's assume this is a real problem that needs addressing (I don't think so, btw). How is government going to fix it? The first step in that process would be: government would have to identify the protected class. Really, do we want to have to go in front of "beauty boards" to get our looks graded?

I'm not in the "government does nothing right" camp, but this is way, way over the line.

 

[Office_Shredder]

lisab, the only way you would be able to bring a suit is if you can prove that you were fired for being ugly. This would probably require an email or a recorded message from your employer to a friend or co-worker or you where he says something like "I'm firing this guy because he's ugly. Not TV ugly, not pug ugly, but ugly ugly"This means that only stupid people would end up getting hit by the law, which isn't really different from the situation with any other discrimination law.

 

[loseyourname]

There are still other socially acceptable and even legally-sanctioned forms of discrimination out there. For instance, we clearly privilege religious systems of belief over non-religious systems. In the US anyway, we allow Sikhs to wear daggers to school and allow Navajos to eat peyote. Yet, we've banned sports logos in certain schools and don't allow Tim Leary's followers to use LSD legally. That might just be part of a broader trend of privileging group identities with longer heritages, so that it's okay to grant exemptions to laws so long as the exemption is because the subculture you're a part of has been doing it for centuries, not decades.

There are also pretty clearly discriminatory practices toward fathers in family courts.

Also, it's still a matter of US statute that females are not to be allowed to serve in battalions which primarily see duty forward of combat lines. That's largely irrelevant in an era where there barely are any lines, and we've allowed them for some time to serve as combat aviators anyway, even though it seems to violate that law. But still, the law sanctions and even requires the services to not allow women to serve in non-aviation combat units.

 

[Proton Soup]

we can have computer algorithms judge peoples' attractiveness.

 

[JaredJames]

we can have computer algorithms judge peoples' attractiveness.

Which would produce judgements based on the programmers idea of beauty...

No better than lining everyone up.

 

[Proton Soup]

Which would produce judgements based on the programmers idea of beauty...

No better than lining everyone up.

no, you have individuals rate photos, then the computer algorithms adjust to accurately predict what the population sees as "beauty". it's like computerized text recognition.

 

[JaredJames]

which is the same as lining everyone up and having everyone judge them.

which population do you use? different people have different ideas of beauty.

throughout history the idea of beauty has evolved with cultures and civilization. without a fair sample of all persons across the globe, you couldn't gauge what is considered beauty. even within a country there would still be too much variation.

which is the same as a person considered beautiful today may not necessarily have been 500 years ago.

 

[JDStupi]

"Oh no, the children have to grow up in a bleak world where if you are ugly you aren't hired, let's get a law that rectifies the situation". Come to think of it, isn't there a similarly themed short-story from Kurt Vonnegut? How prevalent is this "problem"? I'm pretty sure I see ugly people working many places I go. And please do clarify your statement about colleges.

 

[nismaratwork]

Good luck swimming against this current; you're talking about the basis of how humans select mates, which is at the root of genetic selection. What I love about this, is that at some point someone gets to decide who's ugly... will the law have a "who's hot and who's not" section?

Ah, and anyone who thinks that this is the LAST form of discrimination has been hitting the magic mushrooms; being a woman is still a hindrance in the workplace, being a short man is... oh, and race and religion and... pretty much EVERYTHING. Hell, even people in wheelchairs still have it rough... if you doubt me, ask some folks in chairs how life is on average in public spaces... you might be surprised.

 

[pongo38]

It's natural to discriminate. Attempts to stop it are bound to fail, because we are all different, and the only way we can make sense of that is to form associations of like people. That's where the rot starts. An association starts to evolve rules. The rules are impossible to frame properly, but people keep trying to improve them. Look how many archaic laws we are saddled with. They are feeble attempts to correct some perceived injustice or discrimination or whatever.

 

[ihatecats2014]

i support my claim of the differences between schools by personal experience. I go to Georgia tech and the majority of pretty girls are usually found in ivan or the college of management as opposed to the computer or other engineering schools. This might be due to the low number of girls period at this school.

Most girls that (all the girls that i have seen) at the different college of engineering at this school have been, in contrast to the management and ivan colleges, less attractive. Not saying they were ugly, just that they are clearly less attractive. But i admit there is really no direct correlation between the two. Just based on personal experience over time.

I personal don't agree that the government can not do anything about this. The problem arises with what seems to be peoples hesitation of being judged, in terms of their looks. That to me seems to be conceived as taboo for some reason. While most people would agree that, as humans, we find some characteristics that are common through cultural or racial differences as attractive, and similar characteristics to be universally un-attractive. If you read the articles that i posted you could see discrimination that could be seen as gross in comparison to other forms of discrimination.

You don't have to come up with a standardized format to check ugliness vs. attractiveness. Since it is pretty subjective one could propose to treat each case individually on its own merits. What i mean is too, look at the primary reason for discrimination and determine if it is due to the persons physical features by elimination. Elimination could be defined here as a systematic analysis of the cause for termination and what is the most probable cause for it.

 

[Office_Shredder]

What i mean is too, look at the primary reason for discrimination and determine if it is due to the persons physical features by elimination. Elimination could be defined here as a systematic analysis of the cause for termination and what is the most probable cause for it.

How does this compare to the current standard of proof needed for determining if a firing is, for example, racially motivated? And how could you really eliminate all possible causes for termination; especially when you can in fact be fired for absolutely no reason?

 

[Evo]

I was watching a show that interviewed hiring managers and one woman said that she didn't hire a woman because the female applicant wasn't wearing designer shoes. That was the only reason. The hiring manager was a shoe snob and said the applicant's lack of "sophistication" was a clear sign she wouldn't do a good job. I think my jaw hit the floor. But it's unfortunately true, the person that is doing the hiring has to like you, whatever that entails. It's never fair when another human is selecting you.

 

[cronxeh]

I was watching a show that interviewed hiring managers and one woman said that she didn't hire a woman because the female applicant wasn't wearing designer shoes. That was the only reason. The hiring manager was a shoe snob and said the applicant's lack of "sophistication" was a clear sign she wouldn't do a good job. I think my jaw hit the floor. But it's unfortunately true, the person that is doing the hiring has to like you, whatever that entails. It's never fair when another human is selecting you.

I've always considered the HR people to be a waste of space anyway

 

[leroyjenkens]

I think most ugliness that people have is preventable ugliness; meaning they don't take care of themselves properly. Some people, however, really are just ugly no matter what they do. Some ugly people don't even try to mitigate that ugliness by not being overweight, dirty, stinky, or having nice hair, clothes and teeth. But if they don't care, I don't care. It's their business, but I wouldn't hire them.

 

[nismaratwork]

I was watching a show that interviewed hiring managers and one woman said that she didn't hire a woman because the female applicant wasn't wearing designer shoes. That was the only reason. The hiring manager was a shoe snob and said the applicant's lack of "sophistication" was a clear sign she wouldn't do a good job. I think my jaw hit the floor. But it's unfortunately true, the person that is doing the hiring has to like you, whatever that entails. It's never fair when another human is selecting you.

Cronxeh is right, but then again this isn't just women; most guys are told that the first thing people look at are their shoes. What can I say, people are effete, elitist idiots sometimes, but that doesn't form a generalized discriminatory pattern: that's one ***hole.

 

[nismaratwork]

I think most ugliness that people have is preventable ugliness; meaning they don't take care of themselves properly. Some people, however, really are just ugly no matter what they do. Some ugly people don't even try to mitigate that ugliness by not being overweight, dirty, stinky, or having nice hair, clothes and teeth. But if they don't care, I don't care. It's their business, but I wouldn't hire them.

I think you need to distinguish between poor hygiene, and asymmetric features and other typically "ugly" traits. The former is a great reason to question the viability of an applicant, the latter is not... unless their job requires that they be pleasing to the eye for some reason.

 

[General_Sax]

One can be legally fired in Texas for being homosexual.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_LGBT_civil_rights_August_2010.svg

 

[GRB 080319B]

Beauty in things exists merely in the mind which contemplates them.

~ David Hume

 

[Evo]

Cronxeh is right, but then again this isn't just women; most guys are told that the first thing people look at are their shoes. What can I say, people are effete, elitist idiots sometimes, but that doesn't form a generalized discriminatory pattern: that's one ***hole.

My point was that you never know what the person interviewing you is thinking and what will trigger a negative impression.

 

[nismaratwork]

My point was that you never know what the person interviewing you is thinking and what will trigger a negative impression.

That's very true, but probably not something that can be legislated. Truly personal prejudice is awful, but at least any single prejudice will be limited in its scope.

 

[mugaliens]

OK, just for the sake of argument, let's assume this is a real problem that needs addressing (I don't think so, btw). How is government going to fix it?

LisaB, by sheer dint of the fact that I love the name "lisa" I hereby cast my vote that you're in the top 10% of all of us and are hereby held immune to any governmental discrimination...

Yes, I know my comment is absurd - that's my point. There's no objectivity, and therefore the entire idea is absurd, smacking heavily of Germany's identification of the "acceptables" vs the "unacceptables" by means of highly subjective "beauty" markers.

This entire line of "permissible discrimination" is strongly rooted in what lead to WWII.

I HATE and have vehemently protested thread closures in the past.

This is one thread I would like to see closed asap, without either delay or remorse/

- Mugs

 

[mugaliens]

But it's unfortunately true, the person that is doing the hiring has to like you, whatever that entails. It's never fair when another human is selecting you.

It is when the company that does hire you earns a profit while the company with shoe-snobbery HR procedures looses because they're selecting employees because they "look" good instead of because they "are" good.

I'll choose a Warehouse 13 Claudia any day of the week compared to 90% of the more "groomed" people out there! So she's a bit off the wall. So what? She's brilliant and gets the job done. I can swing the ancillary issues - that's what a manager is supposed to do. If they can't handle the bright or innovative, they should be put back on the line, not sucking corporate funds as managers.

 

[loseyourname]

I was watching a show that interviewed hiring managers and one woman said that she didn't hire a woman because the female applicant wasn't wearing designer shoes. That was the only reason. The hiring manager was a shoe snob and said the applicant's lack of "sophistication" was a clear sign she wouldn't do a good job. I think my jaw hit the floor. But it's unfortunately true, the person that is doing the hiring has to like you, whatever that entails. It's never fair when another human is selecting you.

There's a message board for sports fans I frequent sometimes and there was a guy asking for car buying advice and he was seriously considering a Hyundai. Another guy came on that said he was a business owner and he would never hire a man driving a Hyundai because it shows a lack of ambition on his part. The guy went on and on with this Glengarry Glen Ross speech about macho alpha maleness and how much the car you drive matters.

People hire for the absolute stupidest reasons and then wonder why so many companies have incompetent managers.

 

[nismaratwork]

There's a message board for sports fans I frequent sometimes and there was a guy asking for car buying advice and he was seriously considering a Hyundai. Another guy came on that said he was a business owner and he would never hire a man driving a Hyundai because it shows a lack of ambition on his part. The guy went on and on with this Glengarry Glen Ross speech about macho alpha maleness and how much the car you drive matters.

People hire for the absolute stupidest reasons and then wonder why so many companies have incompetent managers.

Sounds like we should legislate against stupidity and incompetence... I'd be behind that with pitchforks and torches ready!

 

[ihatecats2014]

Mugs: i did not mean to connect my topic at all with ww2 or what happened with german eugenics. It seems clear that you have never experienced such discrimination,(or if you have then it doesn't seem to be this particular form) and thus really cannot visualize what i am trying to get across. We should not judge features against an archetype, nor should we really judge beauty as what is normally meant by judging beauty. I was just trying to see if there was any way for an objective observer outside of the situation to analyze whether the person complaining has cause for such a complaint. That is all, maybe setting up writ to force such a process is foolish and absurd but i was just asking a question.

 

[Proton Soup]

There's a message board for sports fans I frequent sometimes and there was a guy asking for car buying advice and he was seriously considering a Hyundai. Another guy came on that said he was a business owner and he would never hire a man driving a Hyundai because it shows a lack of ambition on his part. The guy went on and on with this Glengarry Glen Ross speech about macho alpha maleness and how much the car you drive matters.

People hire for the absolute stupidest reasons and then wonder why so many companies have incompetent managers.

i suspect that virtues like practicality and frugality are about to come back in style. although, there will always be business types where fake it til you make it will continue to be the name of the game.

 

[airborne18]

Try being disabled and young.. People won't even look at you, they avoid it. Seriously.

But I am a conservative, but I am also a very disabled veteran. I am a true believer in the Constitution. I personally don't see where it says that I have any right to tell anyone how to live live. Actually it is just the opposite, it protects everyone's right to do what they want. ( except for hurting kids and dogs and stuff ).

I find it a waste of money and time to fight somethine that involves individual freedoms.

I take this stuff seriously because I served this country well, and still serve. And it is insulting that I served so we can deny individual freedoms.

So fight that fight.

 

[airborne18]

I am in medication land so my take that into consideration when reading my post.

 

[nismaratwork]

Try being disabled and young.. People won't even look at you, they avoid it. Seriously.

But I am a conservative, but I am also a very disabled veteran. I am a true believer in the Constitution. I personally don't see where it says that I have any right to tell anyone how to live live. Actually it is just the opposite, it protects everyone's right to do what they want. ( except for hurting kids and dogs and stuff ).

I find it a waste of money and time to fight somethine that involves individual freedoms.

I take this stuff seriously because I served this country well, and still serve. And it is insulting that I served so we can deny individual freedoms.

So fight that fight.

I think you've expressed the moderate views of many who've served their country, and wish to see basic principles of freedom blended with respect. We get the freedom, so we should exercise restraint in bathroom stalls and try to raise the level of discourse. On a personal note, I'm sorry that you're clearly having such a difficult time as a vet. Remember, most people are dopes to begin with, but that doesn't mean that plenty of people you'll meet along the way won't be happy as your friend, and not look at you oddly (or not at all) or demand war stories. It's trite, but it takes time to find and surround yourself with good people... keep fighting that fight too.