I don't know why these forms of identity are almost entirely ignored, while we obsess over others.
Imagine if tech companies published the height, weight, and facial symmetry of their workforces, like they do now with race and gender.
Yet we obsess over skin colour and genitalia, without a single peep about the physical appearance discrimination that most humans take part in.
However, it's been shown repeatedly that "fuckability" results in better treatment in most other aspects of one's life, including things like job opportunities, career progression, and general treatment in non-romantic social interactions. All of these are scopes that modern society hyperfocuses on when race or gender are involved. That's the hypocritical aspect of it.
What are you possibly going to do about it that isn't already covered under a more general and better fitting "lets find ways to treat each other fairly that minimizes the opportunity for our monkey brains to fuck up and associate traits and characteristics with superficial features. there has got to be a way to do this, jesus christ"?
By focusing on just that aspect, fuckability, you imply that there is something different about this trait that needs special attention outside of finding ways to deal with each other fairly despite the tendency to judge based on appearances. There isn't a way that doesn't start getting weird immediately.
OP is using "fuckability" as an example of something that doesn't get attention to highlight we shouldn't have any special categories and indeed just "treat each other fairly".
Secondly, all those characteristics are subjective, and are continuous measurements, not discrete properties. How do you define short or unattractive?
> Notably, the magnitude of the earnings disparities along the perceived attractiveness continuum, net of controls, rivals and/or exceeds in magnitude the black-white race gap and, among African-Americans, the black-white race gap and the gender gap in earnings
The "one drop of blood" school of thought.[1]
It doubles with each generation (this stops being true remarkably quickly but let's use single-static-assignment to ignore cousin marriage), so while someone with perfect information could say "so-and-so has precisely 14 ancestors from West Africa in a generation where the remaining 242 ancestors are all European", it's easier to say they're 5% African-descended.
Or Black, by the old American rules around race. I did say it's a thought-stopping category.
No, it doesn't. Not being fit merely tells you that they might have lifestyle choices different from your own.
Or they might be female with PCOS. Or they might have a disease that causes fatigue or pain when they exercise. Heck, that might be the very reason for their desk job. Or a history of food insecurity and really need the insurance the job provides to be able to afford therapy, if they are even to that point. Heck, they might just not be knowledgeable enough to separate bad health advice from good health advice and despite trying things out, feel stuck. It isn't like I learned how to care for my body in school, after all. Health class focused on STDs and parts of the body while physical education classes were more focused on sports, rules, and being a good teammate.
The reality is that being overweight only tells you that they are overweight.
Quite an assumption you have there. Industrial food is cheap and crowds out normal food. Some areas are basically food deserts. A significant portion of the population also has health issues that complicate maintaining a healthy weight.
So called "food deserts" are a bit of a chicken and egg problem. Are the restaurants in your area a reflection of the eating habits of the people in that area, or a grand conspiracy to keep us unhealthy? I tend towards the former.
I am also skeptical that even in "food deserts" an enterprising individual can't acquire rice and beans.
for example, if they have recently made the decision to stop smoking cigarettes, thereby making a positive change in their lifestyle and health, this shows strength of character. it also demonstrates their ability to question past poor decisions rather than give in to the sunk cost fallacy, and then take steps to correct them. and of course, it also tends to make you put on weight [0] ... although not much more that 10 lb or 5 kg it seems, so interviewer beware, i guess ;)
0. <https://medlineplus.gov/ency/patientinstructions/000811.htm>
I'd recommend keeping fitness a top priority especially as one gets older. Not only does everything get easier when not overweight, but the energy boost and appearance improvements certainly helps your confidence and presentation in every possible way.
I'm not someone you'd consider a "pretty" man even by a long shot, but being fit with a healthy BMI makes a world of difference nonetheless.
(I took serious stock some time not too long ago and realised weight lifting and being strong wasn't enough when actually overweight. Have dropped 15% of my body weight through dieting and the difference is amazing. I'm closer to fifty).
I've always had a hard time articulating my advice on this matter, because it's easy to be shallow, and it's insensitive because not everyone can act on it. But for those who can, it's more about being pragmatic.
It might be small things like quitting alcohol, not using smart phones until the early hours every single night - so getting enough, better quality sleep. And getting a water carbonator with the money saved from the drink, thus improving your skin through better hydration. And squeezing some walks in here and there eg by parking further away, or taking the stairs, when before you wouldn't.
Taking hard personal responsibility for your own health, I'm sure most everyone could find something to improve on.
I have a long list still to go through for myself - but I've accepted that minor transgressions one day can be balanced out by being better the next few days. Thus one can achieve balance without going crazy.
For me Intermittent Fasting has been an incredible eye opener, and weight shredder. This included learning about nutrition. On this, DIY food box deliveries (eg Everyplate, the simpler/cheaper version of Hello Fresh) are extremely high value compared to eg Uber Eats deliveries - both nutritionally, and financially. It takes effort, of course - but that's part of HTFU.
Finally, going through a process of decluttering and cleaning my home after my separation - changing these habits have been very healthy for my mental state. Perhaps this goes twice for someone with ADHD, like myself. When I'm home now, I truly feel at peace; it's changed my attitude into a more positive one, which has improved my energy and clarity of thinking.
It's all about habits, and mental and physical health interconnect; maintaining both certainly takes discipline and effort. The effects are observable, though, and everyone judges everything all the time on an unconscious level. Fair or not - as biological beings that's just how it is.
Not only are they biases, there is some data that shows attractiveness, height, etc actually correlate with competency. It might be a true stereotype (self-fulfilling or not).
(This is obviously separate from any sexual harassment etc in the workplace -- I'm referring to compensation and promotions)
But law is only about power. It has little relation to morality.
It definitely is okay to discriminate over personal attributes, character and previous experiences, and employ the person who you want to work for you - which is not necessarily the same as the person 'most deserving of a job'. Freedom of association is an important right, people should be free to choose whom to deal with, and imposing restrictions on it (like the protected groups) is morally justified as an exception only if required by important reasons, for example, preventing the social harm done by racial discrimination in employment; in the default condition people should be free to refuse to associate with anyone simply because they don't want to.
That reason is the same for any marginalized group: "preventing the social harm done by X discrimination".
Why not simplify the statement and say "preventing the social harm done by discrimination"?
Accepting discrimination against some people is inherently a hateful position.
If nobody in the village wants to work with Bob because he's an asshole, they should be able to discriminate against Bob (and other assholes) as the social harm of Bob being unemployed and unemployable does not justify the social harm caused by the state coercing people to work with Bob, violating their freedom to choose. It would be harmful (and IMHO immoral) to prohibit discrimination against assholes. Freedom of association - and the freedom of not-associating it implies - is not inherently hateful, it is one of fundamental human rights that should be curtailed only if other alternatives aren't feasible - merely having some reason or some harm prevented is not necessarily enough.
But I see your point.
And I'm not arguing that no one should ever be allowed to discriminate for any reason. I'm simply flipping the script: instead of the default position being that discrimination is acceptable, discrimination should require justification.
Someone might be willing to publicly say "we don't hire assholes" and defend it. Go for it. It would be much harder to say "we don't hire short people" or "we don't hire dalits" and defend that.
In law, for private parties, that is expressly the case. Absent protected classes people could, and with them they still can outside of them, differentiate treatment on any basis they choose.
For government action under US Constitutional law, it's expressly not the case, but discrimination on other bases has a lower threshold for Constitutional acceptability (rational basis vs. strict/intermediate scrutiny.)
(Essentially every non-random decision affecting treatment of people discriminates on some basis.)
I must say, I'm surprised to see you defending prejudice. From what I've read of your posts here over the years, I thought you were against such things.
If I’m hiring for a programming opening, the entire (and proper) purpose of interviewing is to discriminate against people who can’t or won’t be effective programmers.
Being “not an effective programmer” is not a protected class and discriminating against them is fine when hiring programmers.
“But, but, but that’s not discrimination!” Yes, it most certainly is in the “recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another” sense, and is very likely what GP meant when they wrote:
> Essentially every non-random decision affecting treatment of people discriminates on some basis.
I think that's a strawman, but a useful one. It helps to establish the bounds of reasonable judgement in hiring. I think most people will agree that "can't or won't do the job" is reasonable.
Why add such an example here? No one has claimed that discriminating among multiple candidates is never okay.
I'm simply challenging the idea that the law is a useful guide as to whether discrimination is ok.
I like a phrase you used. Decisions should be based on "judgment (not pre-judgment)".
Kind of an odd example to use to defend that “protected classes make people think other discrimination is acceptable” argument, since protected classes didn't exist then and people thought that discrimination was perfectly acceptable.
> I must say, I'm surprised to see you defending prejudice.
I must say, I’m surprised you think I am defending prejudice.
You are literally arguing in favor of the idea that "it's ok to discriminate against anyone who isn't protected".
Prejudice is still prejudice even if the particular characteristic on which that prejudice is based isn't protected (yet...).
> Kind of an odd example to use to defend ...
I'm not using that example to defend my statement, I'm using it to discredit the idea that the law can be used as a basis or guide for morality.
Edit to add: Feel free to have the last word. I can't respond at the moment because I'm "posting too fast", even though I'm posting less often than some others here...
I will say simply that the point is to oppose discrimination against a marginalized group. I don't understand your confusion about that.
No, I’m literally not.
In fact, I’m pointing out that even in law (in the US Constitutional system) it is expressly not unconditionally the case for government, as all government discrimination must pass the rational basis test.
For private parties, discrimination is presumptively legal (aside from protected classes applicable to certain private activities), because (at least, this is one way of looking at it) there is no limited set of “proper purposes” private individuals may pursue, therefore the private equivalent of the rational basis test would be a nullity. It can’t all be improper, because pretty much all substantive decision-making involves some form of discrimination. Choosing to buy Coke vs. Pepsi is private discrimination on some basis. As to when particular legal private discrimination is proper, people will have all sorts of opinions. When there is sufficient consensus that a particular kind of discrimination is sufficiently bad in a particular domain to warrant public intervention (ideally, in democratic principal, though of course real government doesn’t necessarily quite follow the ideal), it will become a protected class.
Is “lookism”, but for when attractiveness is a bona fide job qualification, something that should be treated as a basis protected against discrimination in hiring? Maybe, maybe not.
Should we go farther, and establish that in private industry, as is the case in much government employment, we go beyond the concept of protected classes (without also protecting those) and create a legal requirement that hiring and promotion, etc., is done strictly on bases grounded in documented job requirements and duties, with a legal right to challenge and overturn any such decision for failing that even if no protected class discrimination is involved?
Or, perhaps, falling short of a legal mandate, should we expect private employers to adopt that as their own rule, with a private (but suitably independent of management) appeal forum?
Or is the point just to grouse about “discrimination”?
I'm curious about your proposal for curbing discrimination.
Alan Turing was chemically castrated for being gay. Society finding you conventionally unattractive and thus passing you over for a promotion at work isn't exactly the same thing. People are discriminated against for lots of reasons, many subconscious, but protected categories didn't emerge from a vacuum. The reason being queer is protected whereas being short or ugly isn't has nothing to do with queer people having more power in government (lol) but because there was a history of actual violence, much of which was state-sanctioned, against queer people.
Then again being in a protected category has never really helped me avoid discrimination; having enough money to afford competent legal representation did. I wonder how many Americans can afford that when the majority can't make a $500 emergency expense. I'd argue the poor are the most clearly discriminated against group in our society and clearly there's a history of direct and indirect violence against them on that basis alone, but capitalism requires their existence and so they're invisible to our judicial system.
As for the first part of your comment, I'd just like to ask: what is up with disadvantaged groups fighting one another about who's more disadvantaged?
I do agree about poverty; that's a big disadvantage and is often itself the foundation of another prejudice. That's another group that the law fails to protect.
Good luck suing a potential employer because you were discriminated against outside of some protected class.
For private action, it literally does mean that it is legally acceptable.
What people find acceptable other than legally is subjective and will have infinite differences of opinion.
I don't believe the parent poster was implying it wasn't legally acceptable. They were making a value statement.
Whereas discrimination exist based of height, weight, and facial symmetry, because they are a little less based on cultural factors, they tend to cross group boundaries and not allow for culture wars because of its more evenly distributed nature. The interesting thing is that the fact that you took the time to write a comment about them and that they are becoming a social issue is because the culture spheres tend to be bigger and more intertwined with globalization. People who share the same issues can find eachother and aggregate across cultural identities. The incel "movement" is a product of the world wide web, I don't think it would have been possible in another era.
On another hand, I don't think we need to establish hierarchies between discriminations. Although discriminations share a lot of their logic, they also often respond to their own logic. I am all in favor to put in place more mechanisms to avoid it, like any kind of anonymization, but I don't they are an argument against what's already put in place against more socially recognized ones.
Of course, now there is a form of more or less globalized standard of attractiveness that is more influenced by group that have the more power but that also has to open itself, the more globalized it becomes. But that globalized standard also challenges locally defined attractiveness. I take this is what you mean when you say that "attractiveness is not evenly distributes among races".
(Instagram seems to be the symbol of that struggle for cultural dominance in the realm of attractiveness standards as it is massively used as a tool to capitalize on one's own attractiveness.)
2.Which is why I wrote "a little less" because I did not want to digress too much.