3
   

The PC Police want laws against rewarding the good looking

 
 
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 10:45 pm
Quote:

Among the key findings of a quarter-century's worth of research: Unattractive people are less likely to be hired and promoted, and they earn lower salaries, even in fields in which looks have no obvious relationship to professional duties. (In one study, economists Jeff Biddle and Daniel Hamermesh estimated that for lawyers, such prejudice can translate to a pay cut of as much as 12 percent.) When researchers ask people to evaluate written essays, the same material receives lower ratings for ideas, style and creativity when an accompanying photograph shows a less attractive author. Good-looking professors get better course evaluations from students; teachers in turn rate good-looking students as more intelligent.
.
.
.

Although the laws are unevenly enforced, they have had a positive effect by publicizing and remedying the worst abuses. Because Portnick, the aerobics instructor turned away by Jazzercise, lived in San Francisco, she was able to bring a claim against the company. After a wave of sympathetic media coverage, Jazzercise changed its policy.

This is not to overstate the power of legal remedies. Given the stigma attached to unattractiveness, few will want to claim that status in public litigation. And in the vast majority of cases, the cost of filing suit and the difficulty of proving discrimination are likely to be prohibitive. But stricter anti-discrimination laws could play a modest role in advancing healthier and more inclusive ideals of attractiveness. At the very least, such laws could reflect our principles of equal opportunity and raise our collective consciousness when we fall short.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/20/AR2010052002298.html?hpid=topnews

Is there ANY doubt but that these nuts need to be stopped?

I prefer to have good looking people and things around me..it makes my days nicer. Anyone who is not willing to let me exercise my right to attempt to have good looking people around me can go **** themselves...I am not interested in the objection.
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 11:28 pm
@hawkeye10,
You know what is next right, you know after they make laws that say we can choose our associations based upon looks? Surely it has to be that we can't choose our associations based upon personality, because that would be showing prejudice against the socially challanged...AND THEN WE WILL HAVE COMPLETELY VOIDED THE INDIVIDUALS RIGHT TO CHOOSE WHO WE ARE WITH AT ALL! It will be the perfection of the human race. I can't wait!

Hitler and his love for eugenics had nothing on these folks, we don't need to wait a generation for human perfection, we can make a book of laws and have it right now.

0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 08:26 am
Let's throw a spanner into your works. First of all, I have come to the conclusion that the people who uphold this old PC business . . . and to what extent is it upheld? . . . are middle-of-the-road people in lower-to-middle level management who want to be what they think is "hip."

Second, consider how many truly ugly people are gainfully employed!
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 09:41 am
@hawkeye10,
You left out this part:

Quote:
So why not simply ban discrimination based on appearance?


PC police = "the author of one article, who anticipates a question from her readers"?

Who knew?
fbaezer
 
  2  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 11:47 am
I am against this terrible discrimination threat...
...If ugly people were banned, I would end up working alone.
Letty
 
  2  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 12:27 pm
@fbaezer,
Now we understand Franz Kafka's Metamorphosis. Who wants to hire or work with a cockroach.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 12:32 pm
@DrewDad,
Quote:

So why not simply ban discrimination based on appearance?


because humans innately discriminate based upon aesthetic appeal, so a law banning such discrimination is inhumane.

Furthermore, I don't take kindly to this author attempting to make people feel bad for being human.
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 12:39 pm
@hawkeye10,
The author raised the question, and then discussed it in the article. I wish that you had a discussion as cogent and thoughtful as hers.
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 12:52 pm
@fbaezer,
Chuckle!
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 01:00 pm
@DrewDad,
Quote:
The author raised the question, and then discussed it in the article. I wish that you had a discussion as cogent and thoughtful as hers.
the author took a position, and then argued for the position.....you should learn how to read. the current home page of the WP reads

Quote:
The new culture war
Arthur Brooks: Forget guns and God. This battle is all business.
Q&A: Monday, 11 a.m. ET
Beauty bigotry should be illegal
Why you should fear cyber-war
Moralize, scandalize, apologize
Why we hate oil companies
DrewDad
 
  3  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 01:04 pm
@hawkeye10,
She discussed the opposing view much more thoroughly than you have, here.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 01:07 pm
@DrewDad,
Quote:
She discussed the opposing view much more thoroughly than you have, here.
actually she threw in a "this might be hard to do" but never made the case for why we should not do it at all, which is the other side of the argument.

I never claimed to have not made up my mind about this subject, there is no reason for me to give the opposing argument to mine. That is your job, if you don't agree with me.
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 01:10 pm
@hawkeye10,
No, I meant the view opposed to such legislation.

I couldn't care less one way or the other, though, so TTFN.
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 01:15 pm
@DrewDad,
Quote:
I couldn't care less one way or the other, though, so TTFN
considering the number of Americans who are already livid about US federal government over reach into our personal affairs...you should care about attempts to go even further. .
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 02:05 pm
@hawkeye10,
In case anyone has doubts about how far this nutty feminist Rhodes wants to go

Quote:
Despite this, Rhode says, no one seems ready make a change.

Schools still have requirements for yearbook outfits. Companies requiring a certain look from their employees, like short hair and no earrings for men or high heels for women, often argue they have a dress code in order to provide clients with what they want.

Why need such preference be given to consumer desires? “Hooters’ customers who want cleavage with their burgers are no more worthy of deference than the male airline passengers in the 1970s who preferred stewardesses in hot pants,” Rhode rightly argues.

Rhode doesn’t dispute that when it comes to women’s issues, poverty, rape, unequal pay, and domestic violence are higher on the totem pole of importance than appearance, but she insists it does matter.

“Most people believe that bias based on beauty is inconsequential, inevitable, or unobjectionable,” Rhode says, before quickly squashing the idea. Simply, she continues, “They are wrong.” Later, she further explains that many people affected by dress codes and society’s idea of “normal” are often not free to express themselves and their personal beliefs through their appearance.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Books/Book-Reviews/2010/0520/The-Beauty-Bias
plainoldme
 
  4  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 02:29 pm
@DrewDad,
I back what you have to say in regard this article.

Rhodes is a not "a nutty feminist" but a law professor at Stanford while our host here is a man who writes anonymously on the internet. Hmmm. Let's put those things on Justice's scale or on the scale at any supermarket.

Sorry, hawkeye, but your credentials here are a tad light weight.

Hawkeye, the paranoids are not after you. No one is about to take away from you your right to hire . . . do you even run a business? . . . anyone you wish.

Rhodes even wrote that these laws, where they exist, are unevenly enforced and seldom make it to court.
engineer
 
  3  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 02:32 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Furthermore, I don't take kindly to this author attempting to make people feel bad for being human.

You PC types, always getting bent out of shape because someone made someone else feel bad.
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 02:35 pm
@plainoldme,
Quote:
Sorry, hawkeye, but your credentials here are a tad light weight.
the ideas, the quality of the argument made in defense of those ideas, is all that counts. The preconceived ideas about the particular individuals advancing certain arguments should carry no weight what so ever.

You my dear are a bigot.
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 02:36 pm
@engineer,
Quote:

You PC types, always getting bent out of shape because someone made someone else feel bad
Please follow along...I do not feel bad, I am offended that a person is trying to manipulate me into feeling bad for being me.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 02:40 pm
@plainoldme,
Quote:
Rhodes even wrote that these laws, where they exist, are unevenly enforced and seldom make it to court
What she is arguing is that we should feel free to make these laws because she assures us that they will rarely be enforced, as if she is in a position to make sure this happens. Given our litigation happy society her claim is a great argument that she is out to lunch, and thus should be ignored.
 

Related Topics

THIS PLACE SUCKS ! ! ! - Discussion by Setanta
Obama's Senate Replacement Must Be Black - Discussion by maporsche
A2K Is Pandering - Discussion by cjhsa
The art and science of tags - Discussion by joefromchicago
New A2K is Anti-Free Speech - Question by Brandon9000
This sucks - Discussion by cjhsa
Criminals For Gun Control - Discussion by cjhsa
vBulletin rocks, new A2K forum sux - Discussion by Chumly
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The PC Police want laws against rewarding the good looking
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/18/2021 at 10:02:00