Why Is It OK to Be Mean to the Ugly?
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
This is such a straw man argument. Who is this person that fires people arbitrarily? Does he not have a business to run? Does it not cost him thousands of dollars and probably a few dozen hours of his company's time hiring someone?
The only reason I could see him firing someone because of appearance is where it matters. For instance, if you let yourself go and you're in a high visibility role where it could be argued that it affects your job performance (e.g. actress, cocktail waitress)
Why do we keep discussing these arbitrary scenarios?
The article links to several studies purporting to show this effect in professions that ostensibly have nothing to do with attractiveness.
I get your point. It can be (often is?) reductive to generate a protagonist/antagonist sketch and then extend its implications beyond reason. I don't quite see that happening here.
I can't access the article, but I think attractiveness can be a factor in many jobs. People are called "ugly" because they create a negative emotion when you look at them. Having to be around people like that is objectively a bit worse than being around regular/attractive people. It's a bit like talking to someone who's always a bit abrasive vs someone who's always a bit kind.
I do agree that compared to other forms of discrimination, there are no legal protections for these people and that maybe that should change.
Discrimination against people for unalterable characteristics can affect theirs in pretty obviously damaging ways.
So "ugliness" doesn't exist in a vacuum. And these social science studies especially around something so subjective as appearance are not reliable IMO.
If you are familiar with the old HotOrNot.com or today's swipe-judgement dating apps, you can imagine some pretty large, quantitative datasets about peoples opinions of attractiveness, so I see these as plausible, without having looked into them much.
Imagine some universe where a manager fires an employee purely for their attractiveness. Is that acceptable? Like you mentioned, maybe there are justifiable cases, but should these cases not require this to be stipulated somewhere in contract?
You get stuff like this:
https://www.colorlines.com/articles/pseudoscience-black-wome...
https://www.npr.org/2018/01/09/575352051/least-desirable-how...
You could easily end up with a claim/thought process like this:
"They weren't fired because they are black. It was because they were ugly. And they were ugly because they are black. "
A bit tangental, but an interesting article nonetheless:
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/apr/08/dark-sk...
It's a lot simpler with gender and race and if someone says I don't hire race X, that's pretty clear that its morally wrong and reprehensible. But if someone expects employees to portray a certain image, then that's different. But again, in a well functioning market, you don't have this luxury. Every company I've worked for, especially the low paying ones, went to great trouble to hire qualified employees. I can't imagine one of my employers ever denying someone a position because they think they'll find someone better looking.
I have been involved in hiring discussions at many companies. At the small/medium sized ones, especially startups before the #metoo world, the execs liked to explicitly talk about a persons attractiveness in the hiring stage.
It's less of a "don't hire this person for being ugly" and more of a "hire this person because they are attractive".
You think that an ugly person can't bring you cocktails just as competently as a pretty one? Job performance indeed.
However, a fair establishment would hire for overall attractiveness, not just physically attractive.
The funny, clever, quirky, friendly, classily deferential, product knowledgeable, etc. all have aspects attractive to cocktail purchasers.
It's a thought experiment intended to contrast the justification for the rules we live by.
> The only reason I could see him firing someone because of appearance is where it matters.
Except statistics show that attractiveness is correlated with success in every career. The thought experiment you dismissed steps through the reasons why, say, the stats showing gender disparities are taken as evidence of sexism. There is no comparable -ism for ugliness despite the obvious parity of reasoning.
The articles uses "lookism," which admittedly is nowhere near as well known as racism, sexism, etc., and is probably a non-starter as a word to build a movement on. But I guess some equivalent term will show up in the vernacular at some point (maybe along with heightism?)
It's a subtle trust mechanism between people. It determines who you are and what you're willing to partake in but with minor repercussions involved if it's discovered by someone else who may care. I mean think of this, if you participated in the #metoo movement and your case did not lead to any convictions, do you seriously think anybody will not come up to that person without any trust reservations from the start? It's public knowledge you will go public with something you perceive as wrongdoing against you. So if I accidentally offend you, now I might be concerned you may use that to damage my reputation down the line.
As a former "always follow logic and be nice christian" person, you will never get anywhere butting heads with people for the sake of righteousness. You will go the way of Thomas Moore, get your head chopped off, and the world will proceed without your input interfering again.
In my experience, there's often no backlash against jokes or even serious talking points about "stupid people".
Here's an article explaining it further: https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/moron-idiot-im...
Does this actually provide value without being contrasted to "objective" measures? Are attractive people actually more intelligent, friendly or trustworthy? If they are, this sounds more like a useful heuristic rather than an unfair stereotype. I know I can find this research myself, but it seems weird to not even make reference to any objective measures in this context.
It's all a show. But wisdom isn't what you know, it's knowing how to exploit what others don't to your benefit. It's not nefarious but part of the game.
Now this is clearly speculative and based off my own observations. It's significantly more nuanced than this and more than just one unconscious decision people make. It is however ingrained in us to know culturally what "success" looks like, and we meter others based on that.
You are getting downvoted, but this seems to be a very non-trivial question, especially if historic context is taken into account.
For example, a mere 100-150 years ago, syphilis was widespread in the population, and it often resulted in face deformities [0] and deterioration of the mind [1] at the same time. For someone living in that era, avoiding people who looked ugly and unhealthy might have been a useful heuristic.
Maybe we still use an outdated heuristic from the age of syphilis.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syphilis#Tertiary [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurosyphilis#Neuropsychiatric
That being said, I think your analysis is correct. I think, if you removed a lot of the technology-based attractiveness (make-up, haircut etc.), attractiveness is probably just a heuristic for genetic or general health. Of course, this is an empirical statement, so I imagine it is something that could be/has been studied, I was more commenting on the fact that the article totally ignores this thinking.
Is it ok? No. Check.
Does it happen anyway? Apparently yes.
I think it raises interesting questions about human nature and society.