Should Ugly People get Affirmative Action?
“Hell, no!” I thought, as I read a post on this topic at Amy Alkon’s blog but unfortunately, economist Daniel Hamermesh, author of a new book, Beauty Pays: Why Attractive People Are More Successful thinks otherwise. In an article in the New York Times, he states:
Beauty is as much an issue for men as for women. While extensive research shows that women’s looks have bigger impacts in the market for mates, another large group of studies demonstrates that men’s looks have bigger impacts on the job.
Why this disparate treatment of looks in so many areas of life? It’s a matter of simple prejudice….
A more radical solution may be needed: why not offer legal protections to the ugly, as we do with racial, ethnic and religious minorities, women and handicapped individuals?
We actually already do offer such protections in a few places, including in some jurisdictions in California, and in the District of Columbia, where discriminatory treatment based on looks in hiring, promotions, housing and other areas is prohibited. Ugliness could be protected generally in the United States by small extensions of the Americans With Disabilities Act. Ugly people could be allowed to seek help from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and other agencies in overcoming the effects of discrimination. We could even have affirmative-action programs for the ugly.
I noticed that some bloggers were arguing about whether or not ugly people have it so bad, but that’s not really the point. The more important point here is that every time some overly-dramatic academic comes up with a “theory,” they run to get the government involved as a “solution” –almost always making the problem worse. It’s no wonder we are in such financial and moral trouble these days.
Was the academic that came up with the ‘solution’ perchance……ugly?
i I want to know…How you judge/assess…or does one apply “in the eye of the beholder” Mirror mirror on the wall…am I ugly enough for affirmative action….
ExoCONservative Radio Hour 7 days a week.
I think that “ugliness” in a person’s aspect constitutes protected speech and as such an ugly person has the full protection of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution in any situation in which an adverse decision has been rendered with respect to the ugly person. My face is my thesis.
Do we have a crisis of ugliness in America these days? Really?
When I was a kid, I knew kids who had cleft palates, hairlips, bad teeth, clubbed feet, the works. I do not see these anymore. I do see it when I see pics of foreigners. Average American kids are handsome/beautiful. It is unbelievable to me, when I compare them to the memories of my school years.
I do know a couple ugly people, but they are all of my own generation. I have never encountered an ugly person younger than me. Never.
Ugly? Compared to what?
Of course, affirmative action always lends itself to being gamed. Will we have people trying to get themselves classified as “ugly” in order to reap set-asides and diversity credits?
Yes, dear. Of course.
Forty years ago, when I was in college, the leftists would accuse people of being “lookist,” i.e., judging people on their looks instead of the beautiful person who resided within the grotesque exterior.
What this basically boiled down to was the looks-challenged—who often did not bother to, in Lyle Lovett’s words, “try to do somethin’ with what you got there”—attempting to guilt-trip those to whom they were attracted, but who did not exhibit reciprocal attraction, into permitting themselves to be dated up. In short, it was perfectly permissible for the college gnomes to be “lookist,” but not those the gnomes wanted to look at.
The astute reader will see in this a mindset identical to that which holds that certain favored victim groups can never be racist, while the disfavored group(s) can never not be.
The last thing this country needs is another self-styled victim group starting another round of grievance-mongering.
Monkey…you ever see ‘ugly/fat’ on company payrolls for high dollar, highly competive sales jobs? You ever see ‘ugly/fat’ on the company payrolls for TV network anchor and co-anchor chairs? How many advertising agencies employ the ‘ugly/fat’ to pitch their clients goods and services? The list goes on!
NO law or regulation comes about but for abuses first implemented in the private sector. So, are you and advocate FOR discrimination of any type(s)?
If you are suggesting that there should be affirmative action for the ugly and overweight, you will have to explain why. Tell me, do you also advocate for the mathematically incompetent getting engineering jobs, for fumblethumbs to work as surgeons and mechanics?
T.T. Don’t be more of a fool than God made you. Of course discrimination is legal and will remain so. It just depends on what type of discrimination.
I’m 5’5″ and weigh a buck and a quarter on a good day. No one is hiring me to be be a fireman anytime soon. I even tried being a rough framing carpenter for a few years. I have the skills, I just don’t have the needed strength to do that job. Therefore I don’t do that job. Should the boss that fired me because I was too small to do the job properly be forced to hire me back?
You want discrimination? Take a close look at pay rates in relation to height. You’ll find us short men do significantly worse than tall men.
I have been ignored, treated as if I were stupid (as an aside, my I.Q. qualifies me for MENSA I just don’t like those folks) condescended to and abused pretty much all my life because of my height.
That being said, I don’t want the government stepping in. Short people are not a discriminated against minority who needs government protection and neither are ugly folks.
["I have been ignored, treated as if I were stupid..."]
That may well have a great deal more to do with your attitude than you’re willing to admit!
But TT, just last week you were telling me what an amazing influence you were on readers here at PJM, while only little ol’ me was being mean-spirited. Looks like maybe you aren’t as popular as you thought.
Do you like, uh, have a column over at WashPo or something to indicate your authority on anything? I remember you alleging I was small potatoes because you claimed I only write for PJM. (Let’s forget all the radio appearances and public speaking.) So how about applying the same criteria fairly across the board?
Which attitude was that T.T.? The one where I suffer fools not at all?
Sorry, never have never will.
As far as your previous assertion that Howard (and by extension myself) are nothing because we only post here, I must tell you sir, I am, by dint of posting here, a nationally recognized investigative journalist who has appeared on the Dennis Miller program and has been quoted by Mark Levin.
May we have YOUR CV sir?
If you were really that intelligent you wouldn’t have said, “That being said.”
Only poseurs ever say that.
Richard…I probably wouldn’t want my resume posted online if it looked like yours does. A small problem holding down legitimate jobs over a few months I see!
TTT, you’re begging for a ban with a comment like this one. You’ve been warned.
I don’t believe ‘incompetent’ is a matter of dicussion by the blogger who posted the subject matter. Nice try at your diversion though!
I would think you’re all about that TeaParty-GOP mantra of folks working hard to get ahead…right? Well, if you are discriminated against by employers who hire for your particular skill sets and reject you based on some form(s) of superficial discrimination…what precisely do you suggest? They should just tuck-tail and become window washers in their small or large towns?
The hypocrisy of so many of the TeaParty-GOP is exactly what has allowed for the socialist progressives ideology to advance each new decade after decade.
Folks like you and your buddy Patrick Richardson are among the most valuable assets the socialist progressives have to advance their ideology….you go guys! High IQ’s certainly have NO bearing on how smart a person is!
I don’t believe ‘incompetent’ is a matter of dicussion by the blogger who posted the subject matter. Nice try at your diversion though!
I wasn’t fired as a framer because I was incompetent, but because I was too small to do the heavy lifting required. I’m actually quite good at the technical parts of the job. By the way, it’s spelled “discussion.”
I would think you’re all about that TeaParty-GOP mantra of folks working hard to get ahead…right? Well, if you are discriminated against by employers who hire for your particular skill sets and reject you based on some form(s) of superficial discrimination…what precisely do you suggest? They should just tuck-tail and become window washers in their small or large towns?
A lawsuit? If you can prove in court he fired you just ’cause you’re ugly then by all means.
The hypocrisy of so many of the TeaParty-GOP is exactly what has allowed for the socialist progressives ideology to advance each new decade after decade.
Hypocrisy? Where? If you’re good enough at what you do, looks do not matter. It’s just a fact of life that good looks and competence will get you further than good looks alone — and sometimes good looks will get you what competence won’t. That’s not going to be changing anytime soon. Deal. We don’t need the government stepping in on this one as well.
Folks like you and your buddy Patrick Richardson are among the most valuable assets the socialist progressives have to advance their ideology….you go guys! High IQ’s certainly have NO bearing on how smart a person is!
Buzz, never met you but I’m sure glad to know we’re buddies. As for my brains, yup, I’m pretty stupid, but at least I can spell discussion.
I’ve seen fat, ugly people of power and privilege on TV all the time. They are called CEO or Senator/Representative. All the women look like Father Time raped them repeatedly, and all the men could fast for a week without seeing results. I’ll wager that very few would be able to hang with it if they did PT with my unit (and we’re not as intense as some others).
I’m just wondering who’ll volunteer for the spokesperson of this group? And who will willing go to this group? A bit more seriousness now, I always thought beauty was skin deep. That true beauty lies deeper and is more evident in the person’s character and integrity. How they see their world and what their heart reveals to the rest of us……
that should read – “I always thought vanity was skin deep. True beauty lies deeper….”
So is there a Quasimodo Liberation Front yet?
Eagerly awaiting commentary from Henry Waxman.
Rich wins.
Running to the federal government for solutions of ‘favor and economic handouts’ is NOT reserved for academics! Municipalities, states governments, and for certain, the ‘peoples’ special interest groups and private sector economies live in the halls and offices of congress and the White House.
The question is, how would we quantify or measure ugliness. The standard measure of beauty is said to be the millihelen, i.e. the amount of beauty necessary to launch one ship. Would we have the International Quasimodo Unit, or the Chronological Hesitation Factor? Negative millihelens? (The amount of ugliness necessary to sink one ship.)
The accepted measure of ugliness is the “coyote”, the number of limbs you’re willing to chew off.
["...how would we quantify or measure ugliness."]
Geee! How about from evaluating the skill-sets and experience required of the position and the skill-sets and experience of the applicant and interviewed pool versus that of the hiree? Afterall, the ‘unbiased non discriminatory’ employer is all about the most qualified…right?
Well Hello Howie! I see you’ve come to jump in, in good ole gang fashion. Pretty weak representaion of PJM bloggers who have to gang up…but I don’t mind, I can certainly hold my own agains such thugs.
The one thing you three have in common is that you’ve learned how to use the internet to make yourselves intellectual giants in your own minds. Oh, and Howie, I would be more than happy to post your wimpy little self indulging resume if you give me permission.
Nothing like the verbal behaviors of the intellectually ignored who have found the internet to stroke their ego’s.
You know Tommy, may I call you Tommy? Anyway Tommy, Howard was simply coming to the defense of (I flatter myself) a friend.
However, in response to Nothing like the verbal behaviors of the intellectually ignored who have found the internet to stroke their ego’s.
Well first it’s “egos” not “ego’s” it’s plural not possessive. That aside I’m not certain what “verbal behaviors” you mean. Buzzsawmonkey, Howard and Myself simply responded to your trollery in appropriate fashion. It has been my experience that the best way to deal with a troll is simply to expose the fallacies in their argument, they then, as you have done, become apoplectic and expose themselves.
After reading this, I’ve come to the conclusion that T. T. stands for The Troll.
If he thinks he’s being influential… well, he is… but not in the way he probably desires. He’s influenced me to pay absolutely no attention to anything he says.
Scratch a troll’s thin skin and you get…an angry troll. Imagine that. But we all know that TrollTroll is simply an angry person looking for somebody else to blame for his unhappiness.
Also, note he didn’t respond to Patrick’s and my request for him to provide some indication that he’s got any expertise or even education relevant to anything he barfs out on the PJM discussion section. At least we know Dr. John is a PhD, even if it’s in an area barely applicable to climate change.
This last is why TrollTroll is merely projecting his own lack of confidence and self-esteem when he makes comments about mental giants and suchlike. He deserves our sympathy, despite the fact that he acts in such a way as to prove that he derogates the social contract.
Howie…At my age I hardly have to go around touting how many sheepskins I have or name toss in an attempt to garner credibility. I’ll leave that to some of you more pathetic souls seeking attention for your egos. Rather amusing, those who live in the internet fantasy world who actually come to believe they know to whom they are speaking. A sad bunch indeed…especially those who follow somebody around to attack them!
TrollTroll, you don’t have any credibility. Sheepskins will not matter, no matter how many you have. It was your public approval of what were government death panels and inability to explain how what you wanted wasn’t a death panel that made it crystal clear to me you were a lightweight troll.
Mildly entertaining is the best you can claim.
Richardson…you stated: ["A lawsuit? If you can prove in court he fired you just ’cause you’re ugly then by all means."]
And you claim a MENSA I.Q.?
Hopefully, you won’t next claim to be a lawyer or you’d really be making a ass of yourself!
But for a civil protection, you would have NO legal recourse to claim a tort damage.
In point of fact you could probably make a pretty good claim in several states on the basis of extant discrimination law. Certainly you could in Kansas.
Richardson….WOW! I’m so impressed with your credentials!
“…nationally recognized investigative journalist who has appeared on the Dennis Miller program and has been quoted by Mark Levin.”
I don’t know which to bow down and kiss first…your feet or your butt!
Make sure you inscribe all those credentials on your gravestone so the one or two who walk past it 3 years after your death will know you were a big time intellectual. There rest of the world of course could care less who you were or thought you were.
By the way! Did you three learn in church to disrespect anothers territory such as Dr. Smiths posted topic? Why don’t you consider saving your diversions and attacks on your own posted topics?
Sarcasm and snark are best applied with a deft touch, and should not be attempted by those unskilled in their use.
A word to the wise is sufficient.
Your ‘previous’ comment!
["He’s influenced me to pay absolutely no attention to anything he says."]
And here you are again!
Now to get back on topic, can anybody tell me why, in this day and age, the government has any business telling an employer whom he must hire in the first place?
Affirmative action once may have had it’s place (I can make an argument to the reverse, but will save that for another day) but I do not see where it does anything anymore but create preferences based on skin color, sex, sexual orientation or whatever the minority of the week is.
Dr. Smith! Sorry you worthy topic of discrimination was derailed. It is a topic of abuse that needs more serious airing!
Rush Limbaugh predicted in his first book that ‘UgloAmericans’ would become a protected group.
Always on the cutting edge of societal evolution, Rush Limbaugh is. He was discussing AA for Uglo-Americans almost three decades ago. (Had Daniel Hamermesh reached high-school age by then?) If Hamermesh doesn’t credit Rush in his work, does that make him guilty of academic fraud?
We really don’t need affirmative action for ugly people, that’s what beer is for.
Just remember, Eager beats pretty.
Lowell
Agree with #18. Just pass out the beer.
Trust me, affirmative action for the ugly already exists. Go deal with any city, municipal or federal employee. I’m not kidding.
There is more than one kind of ugly. I have met many people who were physically unattractive, but who were friendly, polite, kind, and good listeners. I have also met a few who were good-looking, but were also arrogant, vain, rude, and condescending jerks. (Kind of like a certain commenter in this thread, who seems to think that sneering and insulting people will convince them to agree with him.)
I would rather spend an entire evening with the former than ten minutes with the latter. No amount of outward beauty can compensate for that kind of toxic personality.
“If you wanna be happy
For the rest of your life,
Never make a pretty woman your wife,
So from my personal point of view,
Get an ugly girl to marry you.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh9ZZgDqzAg
There’s a free market solution for determining who qualifies for ugly affirmative action: hotornot.
What about dumb blondes? Where do they fit into the scheme of things? Do we need affirmative action for people who are pretty but dumb?
The 800-pound gorilla in the room that almost everyone ignores is how government-mandated affirmative action in private hiring necessarily compels a private employer to NOT HIRE that person over THERE because the job slot has just been forcibly occupied by some grinning jerkoff with dark skin or some other politically favored characteristic with no bearing whatsoever on actual competence. Put in legal terms, there has been a large, uncompensated taking from the person who wasn’t hired because he or she was almost certainly white, straight and able to do the job much better than rent-seeking crybabies.
This kind of arrogant bullcrap is eventually going to lead to some very ugly consequences.
You have hit the nail on the head. I would go further & say that government has no business at all in overseeing a company’s hiring policies.
On the “ugly” thing: some day we will grow up & realize the world is not perfect. I remember seeing a chance encounter, when a female tech writer at our company managed to bump into a real estate salesman’s assistant outside an elevator. The tech writer was not exactly la Quasimoda, but she would never have made the pages of Playboy; she was short and homely. The real estate girl was all curves and blonde hair and “Southern courtesy”: she actually might have made it into the pages of Playboy.
What I found interesting was that the tech writer seemed to go into some sort of existential crisis, roughly, “Should I ENVY this dumb blonde airhead who probably makes about 30 percent of what I make?” It seemed as though she was having trouble shaking off the possibility of “Yes.”
There are lot of fat people making huge bucks all over America. How about Rushbo, and his recent $400-million contract? :-0
I always thought I got ahead because of talent and tenacity. What a let-down to find out all these people just approve of the way I do surgery because of my good looks. I’m crestfallen.
How about a once-attractive person who gets all tatted up and pierced and becomes ugly? Would he/she qualify as a member of a protected class?
“the looks-challenged—who often did not bother to, in Lyle Lovett’s words, “try to do somethin’ with what you got there” ”
I’d imagine this has a lot to do with the ugly/fat’s lower success rates. As an interviewer, if you see a fatty (almost all of whom get that way by overindulgence & inactivity) or an ugly person who hasn’t even made an effort to “clean up,” you’re going to wonder how much of an effort they would make on the job. Personally, I know several naturally less-than-attractive people who are quite successful, and all of them do what they can with what they have.
Two words: Harrison Bergeron
I wasn’t exactly ugly, at least not when I was young. But the article reminded me of something that happened when I was in my early thirties and new to the software industry.
I had just hired on with a new company after only three years in the profession. I had done well with my previous employer, achieving two promotions in the course of about a year and a half. But with my new company, I was put on a project run by a hard-as-nails woman manager on the make (we’ll call her Madge), and after a couple of months it became clear that oxygen was wrong if I breathed it. After three months with the company, I didn’t think there’d be a fourth.
I got along fine with the rest of the shop — except for me, it was an all-girl outfit. The rest of the staff were, mostly, pretty young things in their twenties. No disrespect intended — they were all very professional and competent. Madge herself was a fine-looking woman in her forties, and very hard-working. I still don’t quite know how I got on her bad side, but I did have a bad habit of speaking my mind, and it took years to figure out that not every thought should be expressed out loud. Some of us are slow learners.
Then, a man who had worked with them for a couple of years came back to their project. We’ll call him Stan, and this guy looked like a soap-opera star. Stan was a very nice fellow, too, not at all arrogant, or a jerk. Madge and the other ladies acted positively giddy in his presence. Problem was, as I discovered, he couldn’t code his way out of a wet paper sack. There was one project he worked on for three months and couldn’t figure it out. Out of desperation, Madge (who by this point wouldn’t even talk to me) instructed one of the other programmers to tell me to take it over.
Now, if I’m lying, I’m dying — I solved the problem in about an hour. The problem wasn’t tough, but some people just don’t get EBCDIC data representation. Stan didn’t. I did. But my career was the one in trouble; Stan’s wasn’t.
I’m not the hero of this story, by the way — I had a lot to learn about the way the Lord wants me to live my life. At the time, I was quite resentful of the fact (and it was a fact) that Stan’s failures somehow served him better than my successes served me. I got the work done, but Stan was the one treated like a star. So I grumbled and complained to others. I’m not proud of that and it has been on my conscience ever since.
I got zeroed out for a raise that year, even though I had done pretty much all the work that was assigned, on or ahead of schedule. Had the parameters been reversed and Stan and I had been women in a shop full of men, I would have had grounds for a lawsuit. Instead, what I’ve had to settle for what turned out to be, well, priceless: a lesson in how the world works, and more importantly in how the Lord deals with His people when they are stuck on themselves, like I was.
But it is a fact that attractive people will always impress others more for the same degree of accomplishment — as if you’re taking the SATs and discover Stanford is spotting ol’ Pretty Boy over there 600 points. But instead of being resentful, the proper attitude is to be thankful for the gifts you have been given and not to resent others for the gifts they have been given.
What about stupid people? Aren’t they even more discriminated against than the ugly?
“Ugly” should be included among the classes afforded protected status under the civil rights laws. Currently, Titles II, III, VI,VII, and IX prohibit discrimination in a number of contexts on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin but physical attractiveness is not among the protected classes. As the main story shows, on the basis of a physical characteristic that is often inherited and is immutable, like race or sex, the ugly are subjected to serious discrimination in employment, education, housing etc., and so there is no rational reason why ugly should not be treated similarly to race or sex for purposes of discrimination.
Some would expand the kinds statuses protected under the law to include sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression. There is no reason to afford physical appearance with any less protection.
It is always dangerous to impute special virtue to the cute.
What major life activity does having a weak chin or an asymetrical face or pear shaped figure limit?
Using the ADA to get at ugliness is a neat idea but even better would be having a disagreeable personality declared a disability that requires accommodation.
Very much to the point is the late David Stove’s analysis of egalitarianism, where he notes that egalitarianism is not a normal appetite. If you’re hungry, you eat and you’re not hungry. If you’re horny, you take care of that and you’re not horny any more. But egalitarianism feeds on itself: the more successful it is (let’s say with blacks, women, and gays) the more sensitive it becomes to remaining inequalities: thus we wind up with Fat Liberation, Ugly Liberation and (it’s coming) Stupid Liberation, and the day is not far off when employers are forbidden to hire people who are fat, ugly and stupid. Whoopee for freedom of association!!
As a fatty, I’m here to tell you that there are no effective barriers to ridiculing or belittling fat people in the workplace. Employers might be too gun-shy to try that with the female of the specie, but when you’re a fat guy, nobody is looking out for your tender feelings.
But we’re talking about comments I’ve heard since I was in grade school. I’ve heard it all before. People in the workforce do not need sensitivity training. They need de-sensitivity training. Let the ignoramuses talk. Its a good thing. You don’t have to guess at who the insensitive mouth-breathers are.
Nobody’s looking out for you, fat, thin, or otherwise — least of all government bureaucrats. If you can do the work, you’ll be hired in an instant. Let Chris Christie be an inspiration.
> Nobody’s looking out for you, fat, thin, or otherwise — least of all government bureaucrats.
I’m at one with the “ought” behind that statement, but I’m pretty darn certain it’s false with respect to the “is”. Every year, employers across the country, mine included, make their employees sit through hours of what used to be called “sensitivity training”, but which nowadays takes a decidedly P.C. bent. In their little filmed skits, there is a steady parade of white men playing the role of the insensitive clod who loves to hurt the feelings of the poor aggrieved women and minorities. I’m sure it wouldn’t occur to the makers of these little modern morality plays that if it’s wrong to stereotype, then it’s also wrong to stereotype white men. But the goal doesn’t seem to be “getting equal”. It seems to be “getting even.”
> If you can do the work, you’ll be hired in an instant. Let Chris Christie be an inspiration.
No worries. I’ve had a long and rewarding career, and hope to make it still longer and more rewarding. But I’m very glad not to be a young man just starting out.
I guess as a devilishly good-looking man about town, I may not fully comprehend how it is that the state presumes it will label people as ugly for the purposes of statistical quotas. Will it ask frat boys to judge “hot or not” competitions? Will it show pictures of men to pretty girls and ask them to rate the men as “do-able” or not?
Hasn’t this already been addressed? Two words: Janet Reno
Bryan Preston
TTT, you’re begging for a ban with a comment like this one. You’ve been warned.
If you’re an ‘honest’ kind of fella you would recognize the orchestrated effort made by some your cohorts to perpetuate personal attacks. One has an established behavior of following me around to do nothing more than cast personal attacks and disrupt other bloggers postings.
Both Richardson and on more occasions, Nemerov have seen fit to tout their resumes as if to indicate they have some superior credibilty over others. Both of their resumes are matter of public record on the internet so it would not be unreasonable to take a look at them to evaluate their presumed superiority. As for Nemerov, I have a file of his unwarranted personal attacks if you would like to review them.
At my age and with my long careers I don’t really need to be lectured to by anybody concerning my opinions that I have every equal right to express in strong opposition others opinions…or maybe not on here it seems. This is my first an only exposure to such sites so maybe I don’t understand that if you’re of a different choir you’re not allowed to oppose. Ban me if you so choose but, that will not stop my efforts to oppose much of what the Tea Party has evoloved into and represents while clinging to the traditional GOP’s coattails.
Patrick Richardson
T.T. Don’t be more of a fool than God made you
Howard Nemerov
But TT, just last week you were telling me what an amazing influence you were on readers here at PJM, while only little ol’ me was being mean-spirited. Looks like maybe you aren’t as popular as you thought.
Howard Nemerov
Scratch a troll’s thin skin and you get…an angry troll. Imagine that. But we all know that TrollTroll is simply an angry person looking for somebody else to blame for his unhappiness
Patrick Richardson
Buzzsawmonkey, Howard and Myself simply responded to your trollery in appropriate fashion.
“At my age and with my long careers I don’t really need to be lectured to by anybody concerning my opinions that I have every equal right to express in strong opposition others opinions…or maybe not on here it seems.”
Oh you have that right, we have the right to reptitively and in your eyes viciously show you have no common sense, and you don’t. You’ve commonly made statements which show you’re a legend in your own mind. We have the right to laugh in your face publicly.
Make sense instead, we’ll stop.
I don’t think you have it in you.
What’s your real, full name Thomas?
What a GREAT IDEA!! And to level the playing field for the stupi….errr intellectually challenged people we’ll have them wear helmets that make loud/distracting/painful noises when the thought processes get to spinning too fast. Hmmmmmm, wait a minute, that sounds vaguely familiar……something about a book from 27 years ago….
Looking good can be a vital part of the job requirement for many jobs, like fashion model or actor. And for many others, like salesmen or waitress, it makes them more productive because customers are more inclined to like them. Not so much for somebody that works out of the public eye, like in a factory or office cubicle. I think anti discrimination laws for looks are silly anyway, but if somehow they ever do get enacted, at least they should have exceptions for jobs in the public eye, where good looks really matter. Otherwise it would be equavelent to having affirmative action for people that cant do math or logic, for computer programming or accounting jobs, or affirmative action for uncoordinated weaklings for construction jobs.
Hey, they should apply affirmative action to marriages. I want my supermodel bride!
you are ugly