The PC Police want laws against rewarding the good looking

@hawkeye10,

furthermore, given the mess our civilization is in bossy elitists have lost any presumption of possessing wisdom that they might have carried previously.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

From Stanford's website:

Quote:

Deborah L. Rhode is one of the country’s leading scholars in the fields of legal ethics and gender, law, and public policy. An author of 20 books, including Women and Leadership and Moral Leadership, she is the nation’s most frequently cited scholar in legal ethics. She is the director of the Stanford Center on the Legal Profession.

Professor Rhode is the former president of the Association of American Law Schools, the former chair of the American Bar Association’s Commission on Women in the Profession, the founder and former director of Stanford’s Center on Ethics, and the former director of the Michelle R. Clayman Institute for Gender Research at Stanford. She also served as senior counsel to the minority members of the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary on presidential impeachment issues during the Clinton administration. She has received the American Bar Association’s Michael Franck award for contributions to the field of professional responsibility; the American Bar Foundation’s W. M. Keck Foundation Award for distinguished scholarship on legal ethics; and the American Bar Association’s Pro Bono Publico Award for her work on expanding public service opportunities in law schools. She is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and vice chair of the board of Legal Momentum (formerly the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund). She is currently a columnist for the National Law Journal.

Before joining the Stanford Law faculty, Professor Rhode was a law clerk for Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall.

The website goes on and lists her publications.

I have not (yet) read her book, but I'm sure that she did quite a bit of research and documented her sources. Simply because you don't agree with her conclusions does not warrant calling her a "nutty feminist."

At least one state, Michigan, already bans discrimination based on weight.

Quote:

The opportunity to obtain employment, housing and other real estate, and the full and equal utilization of public accommodations, public service, and educational facilities without discrimination because of religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, height, weight, familial status, or marital status as prohibited by this act, is recognized and declared to be a civil right.

MCL 37.2102(1).
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(qbbzds45ap200155njrry555))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-37-2102

And last, but not least, one person's beauty is another person's ugly. I just wish that folks wouldn't be so superficial -- there's more to beauty than just symmetrical features. Anybody remember things like intelligence, kindness, wit, humor . . . .?

1 Reply

@Always Eleven to him,

Quote:

And last, but not least, one person's beauty is another person's ugly. I just wish that folks wouldn't be so superficial --

At the end of the day you should be able to choose what you like and attempt to have it in your life. There are only an extreme few situations where the government should make laws to tell you what values you are allowed to use when running your life.

Do you put colors that you think are ugly on your walls? Do you plant flowers that you think are ugly in your garden in order to be "fair"? Do you surround yourself with people with ugly personalities because you don't have the right to infringe upon their right to be who they want to be? Beauty is too superficial to be a consideration....right?

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Well the whole subject of looks are far too subjective to be able to made laws about, still if there was a way of doing so I do not see why we should not do so.

Given a position that have nothing to do with looks or shape IE not an actor/actress or a hooter girl I see no moral justification in telling someone that he or she can not support his or her family by being a bookkeeper for example because of failing to meet some subjective standard of beauty.

Therefore, my conclusion is that we cannot do so but it would not be a bad public policy to have such laws in place if there were a possible mean to write an enforceable statute.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

Well the whole subject of looks are far too subjective to be able to made laws about, still if there was a way of doing so I do not see why we should not do so

great, so if in your opinion it would be a nifty idea to carve out protection for those who are genetically deficient in beauty, are you going to be consistent say say that we can't discriminate based upon intelligence either?

Also, are you going to agree with this kook that standards on appearance in business should go away because they deprive individuals of their right to do what they want?? How far down this path are you willing to go?

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

People should be judge by their abilities and skills to do a job at hand not for factors that have no possible connection to a position they are applying for.

For a hiring manager to weight in such completely irrelevant factors as the bookkeeper breast size is not only unfair to the flat chested bookkeepers but does not serve the company he is working for well either.

The hiring manager can used any subjective standard of looks in picking a mate for himself but not for hiring a bookkeeper.

Oh if you are talking about a sale person or someone who have contact with customers then looks can be one factor but not in a back office bookkeeper for example!!!!

2 Replies

@BillRM,

You know Hawkeye you see yourself doing the hiring or picking not as someone losing out on a needed job that you are more then qualify for because the forty something female hiring manager prefer the looks of a thirty year old gentleman who happen to had far less skills then you do.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

Oh if you are talking about a sale person or someone who have contact with customers then looks can be one factor but not in a back office bookkeeper for example!!!!

It all seems arbitrary to me..an employer choose who he wants to employ based upon out of work time drug use, bill paying history, in most states he can fire a worker for any reason at all, can monitor computer and phone usage 24/7 if it is a company provided machine, can tell people how to act towards each other and what words are allowed to be used in the workplace,....but in your opinion he can not choose to employ people who please him either in looks or in personality (because only the ability to do the job should matter) ???

Do you see anything wrong with this picture?

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

You know Hawkeye you see yourself doing the hiring or picking not as someone losing out on a needed job that you are more then qualify for because the forty something female hiring manager prefer the looks of a thirty year old gentleman who happen to had far less skills then you do.

Skills is one part of the package, nobody I know hires on skill only. Hell, a lot of employers would rather hire people are are not previously trained because this means that they have not learned bad ways.

I want people who I sense have good values, who seem easy to work with, people who I think i might like to spend 50 hours a week with, who either know what I want them to know or seem like they can pick it up fast. How they look plays into that. If they look like **** and don't care enough to fix it then I figure they are not going to be proactive working for me either.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

I have to laugh and laugh hard as you been whining about being a poor white man however you still see yourself as being on the top of the hill and as a gatekeeper to that hilltop at that.

Your ideas of looks and beauty should carry the day and skill and abilities are of far lesser worth.

Yet somehow I can see you whining your little heart out if some black hiring manager decided that your white skin was not his or her idea of the kind of business looks they was going for or if Jesse James look at you and decided that he would not hire you because of the fact your skin is not cover with tattoos. After all, you could get that taken care of it you only care enough.

Hawkeye if the hiring manager was a gay person and you were far too manly for his taste you would not be too happy either.

If I were an owner of a company, I would not desire anyone with your outlook on life to have any say on who would be working for me that is for sure.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

I have to laugh and laugh hard as you been whining about being a poor white man

Please indicate which part of my argument is predicated on me being either poor or white?

Can't do it because it never happened.

That being the case how about you deal with the points that I made?

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

You know Hawkeye as a senior man in my department I got the fun task fairly often of interviewing people for openings over the decades and I can not think of one time that looks or lacks of same came into my mind.

Does this person had the skill sets needed and does he impress me as someone who would carry his weight or not.

If my judgment were in error I and my coworkers would be paying the price for months to come at best and his looks was completely beside the point.

He could look like hell boy or a troll or the green giant and I could had care less.

You are surely not someone I would care to have doing the hiring if you think that looks should to be a factor in an engineering department.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

You are surely not someone I would care to have doing the hiring if you think that looks should to be a factor in an engineering department.

so you never cared if the person had a personality that seemed like it would not mesh with the rest of the team, did not care if they had BO, did not care if they took enough care in the job to bother dressing for the interview, did not care if they choose an offensive t-shirt, did not care if their clothes we clean...

I dont believe you.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Your point that looks should matter in position where looks have nothing at all to do with the job?

I never dream that even liking a co-worker was or should be a factor in his hiring only his or her ability to work with the team to get the job done.

Some of the very best of my fellow employees was of the type that I had zero in common with and would never dream of going out and having a drink with.

Others that as people I like a lot did not work out in my department at all.

No I see that anyone who place values on looks or even how must of a friend that person could be in hiring should never have the power to hire anyone.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

care in the job to bother dressing for the interview, did not care if they choose an offensive t-shirt, did not care if their clothes we clean...

You going far far from hiring people because they look better then others to BO and tee shirts with bad words on them!!!!!!

So now you are going back to we both do not care how ugly they look as long as they do not have BO and throw on a coat and tie on correct?

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

You going far far from hiring people because they look better then others to BO and tee shirts with bad words on them!!!!!!

actually, it is the direction Rhodes is going in, she is already saying that you dont have the right to establish dress codes, or the penalize those who dress in a way that you dont approve off.

My point though was your insisting that only skill/ability to do the job should be counted. My point is that I don't believe that you actually think that, Like the rest of us, you care about the package that those skills come in.

0 Replies

One more comment my old company was a family own business worth somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 billions dollars with it main founder net worth being listed in Fortune Magazine as 500 millions dollars or so.

The man dress like he was a company janitor and used to delight in talking to new employees who did not know who he was about the company. He drove a beat up car and live in a middleclass house in a middleclass neighborhood.

Coats and ties was for dealing with customers and thinking back I can not remember anyone within the company at any level wearing a suit within the company as a matter of course.

Hmm the founder brother and partner might had been a suit wearer now that I think of it.

In any case, the whole company culture was very informal concerning dress as well as such things as chain of commands ETC.

A very nice family and when the two brothers pass away and their children sold the business 400 millions was set aside to be pay to the employees base only on the time in the firm not pay grade.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha . . .

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Oh, I am so sorry, but, you need to go back to the Age of Enlightenment and learn how the modern Western polity is structured.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Have you ever heard of the concept of the burden of proof?

1 Reply

The PC Police want laws against rewarding the good looking

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know