Author: has written 5280 posts for this blog.

Jill has been blogging for Feministe since 2005.
Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

26 Responses

  1. Z S
    Z S September 14, 2011 at 10:53 am |

    But who gets to decide if you are ugly? Do you have to accept an offical designation to pursue action? If you later cure your horrible skin condition, get a better suited haircut and redesign your wardrobe to flatter, will you be re-designated as “normal” or attractive looking and lose the right to sue?

    Possibly the figure about who works vs who is cute is correlation. Eg if people who have more access to wealth have more access to job opportunities/education, perhaps the same people are less likely to be obese and have more discretionary money to spend on eg hairdressers, stylish clothes (which get them rated more attractive). Though it does rather give the lie to the idea that beautiful women don’t have to work because they can get men to support them.

    I think where this most affects men is possibly height isn’t it?

  2. Rochelle
    Rochelle September 14, 2011 at 11:07 am |

    Hmmm. Are less attractive women really ‘choosing’ not to work? My understanding in this economy is that most people are not choosing to be unemployed. It also seems that the small percentage of privileged women who according to Hamermesh are attractive enough to benefit in the mating arena (and therefore could probably also do well in the professional world) are the only ones who can ‘choose’ not to work due to the wealthy man they snagged. At the same time, they might be the same ones who are benefiting from a 5% greater chance of being hired due to their good looks. Oh to be beautiful.

  3. La Lubu
    La Lubu September 14, 2011 at 11:08 am |

    Soooo…..a male economist thinks ugly women have no problem finding a man who is not only willing to marry them, but also financially support them so they don’t have to work? Huh. What’re they smoking at his college?

  4. BHuesca
    BHuesca September 14, 2011 at 11:13 am |

    I especially appreciated your part of the article!

    RE: Looks discrimination based on weight – I’ve heard in many, many articles (none of which I can link to presently, as I’m at work) that it affects White women and Asian women at much higher rates than it does Latina and Black women.

    And when I’ve read that, the two devils sittin’ on my shoulders yell out “Intersectionality!” and “Oppression Olympics!” at the same time.

  5. BHuesca
    BHuesca September 14, 2011 at 11:15 am |

    Clarification…..”when I’ve read that” I mean artices about what race/ethnicity of women suffers most from looks/weight discrimination. I did not mean that the article Jill quoted from & is quoted in is the one that made me feel like screaming.

  6. Comrade Kevin
    Comrade Kevin September 14, 2011 at 11:30 am |

    Attractiveness is both objective and subjective. It’s tough to gauge a measurable standard. Looks discrimination sort of reminds me of Justice Potter Stewart’s famous quote about pornography. “I know it when I see it.”

    This doesn’t mean that it is fictional, just that beyond cultural standards of beauty, we function on the basis of a continuum to decide who classifies as beautiful or not beautiful.

  7. How
    How September 14, 2011 at 12:06 pm |

    How do you disentangle “he was discriminated against because he’s ugly” from “he was discriminated against because he lacked confidence, which stems from his perceived ugliness?” Seems like opening up legal claims in this area would be pretty messy at best.

    Now, if you can show discrimination based on a medically recognizable condition – acne, giantism, obesity, gender dysphoria – maybe it is less problematic, since those might be covered by existing ADA law.

  8. FashionablyEvil
    FashionablyEvil September 14, 2011 at 12:16 pm |

    I think where this most affects men is possibly height isn’t it?

    Yes, tall men make more money than short ones.

  9. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub September 14, 2011 at 12:27 pm |

    Huh. This dude should have been there when my old boss (who was no hottie himself) actually outright refused to hire women who weren’t conventionally attractive. Even wrote on the resume of one woman “looks–not great”. And complained to me that the candidates weren’t attractive enough. He finally STFU when I pointed out that his refusal to hire them based on their looks could be actionable, and that I’d be duty bound to testify if it came to that.

  10. zatarra
    zatarra September 14, 2011 at 12:31 pm |

    I work in Minneapolis. When I walk through the skyway at lunch all I see is unattractive fat ladies. 1/50 is attractive. The attractive ones are at home cheating on their rich husbands.

  11. DP
    DP September 14, 2011 at 12:32 pm |

    Something something Harrison Bergeron something something Douglas Adams something something *leaps off cliffs of insanity screaming silently*

  12. kb
    kb September 14, 2011 at 12:46 pm |

    this also seems even harder to prove than most forms of discrimination, mostly because it’s so subjective. I can’t really see anyone going in to a doctor to get an official diagnosis of ugly. And I just, can’t get how you write a law, most of which have to be in either you broke it or not form, to deal with something with a range like looks. At what point do I get to sue? If I’m officially ugly? or just uglier than 1 person who works there? bottom half?

  13. CassandraSays
    CassandraSays September 14, 2011 at 12:49 pm |

    In theory, sure, people should be able to sue over any kind of discrimination. In practice, I’m not seeing how this could be done in a way that wasn’t horrible for the person filing the suit.

  14. BHuesca
    BHuesca September 14, 2011 at 12:59 pm |

    I was on a camping trip with my lovely college girlfriends a few years ago, and I woke up a couple hours earlier than everyone else, so I borrowed a book- it was the Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood. Yeah, I know.

    But there’s a scene in it where the protagonist’s mother has been in bed for months with (I think) a nervous breakdown. A brand-new-at-her-job and recently-divorced-in-the-1940s saleswoman comes to the door, and the protagonist tells her mother that the saleswoman has on an unflattering shade of lipstick. The mother says that this will not do, and, feeling sorry for the saleswoman, gets out of bed, interrupts the saleswoman’s spiel, and gives her makeup lessons and they end up being lifelong friends. And the saleswoman was successful and happy and yada yada.

    Why, yes, there’s a point here: for some jobs, beauty discrimination could make sense, I guess. I don’t think I’d go to the makeup counter at Macy’s staffed by the person with the uneven lipliner, and just last night I admit to asking the male Target staffer for a guy perspective on some curtains. I still went with my choice, and my husband just said “oh, you got the curtains, thanks honey, I thought we were going to shop Saturday.” And of course there are models, who, I believe, are not subject to weight-discrimination law protections (Thank you, Oceans 13).

    (Or is this “beauty discrimination could make sense” just a means of enforcingthe know-how or willingness and ability to conform to societal standards?)

  15. Anonymouse
    Anonymouse September 14, 2011 at 1:00 pm |

    Wait, so I assume he thinks that women “choose” not to work because they are getting married? So, using his logic, if a woman is too ugly to even show her face in an office, surely she’s too ugly to find a man to support her? Just trying to use his troll logic is hurting my ladybrain. I need a lie-down, but I only have 30 minutes of lunch break left. Ooh, but I can choose not to work!

  16. zatarra
    zatarra September 14, 2011 at 1:34 pm |

    Soon, people will want to sue employers based on lack of intelligence.

  17. Echo Zen
    Echo Zen September 14, 2011 at 1:42 pm |

    I suspect people have wanted to sue employers for lack of intelligence since time immemorial (unless you mean people’s intelligence, not employers)!

  18. zatarra
    zatarra September 14, 2011 at 2:21 pm |

    yeah, I meant stupid people will sue employers for not hiring them based on that lack of intelligence.

  19. BHuesca
    BHuesca September 14, 2011 at 2:45 pm |

    Echo Zen:
    I suspect people have wanted to sue employers for lack of intelligence since time immemorial (unless you mean people’s intelligence, not employers)!

    Probably both are correct!

  20. DP
    DP September 14, 2011 at 2:54 pm |

    zatarra:
    yeah, I meant stupid people will sue employers for not hiring them based on that lack of intelligence.

    It’s honestly about as rational as this – I suppose you could argue that intelligence is the only “fair” criteria to judge a person’s employability on – because it has the most direct bearing on work performance – but in the sense of being something of a genetic lottery, it’s just as unfair that some people are born with exceptional brains and others with exceptional bone structure. (If you’re born with both, you can just go toss your genetically perfect selves into a woodchipper…looking at you, Viggo Mortensen and Jodie Foster).

    I mean, it’s obviously not *fair*. But the idea of suing because you are less attractive than average…unless you can prove that, as one person related, the hiring manager is going NOPE, UGGO on a repeated basis, what the hell do you have to go off of? Would you line up the whole staff of the office/store and compare the candidate to them and have an independent panel judge their relative attractiveness.

    Plus, for some jobs, attractiveness is intrinsically tied to job effectiveness – models, salespeople at many types of clothing shops, firefighters…

  21. LC
    LC September 14, 2011 at 3:53 pm |

    FashionablyEvil: Yes, tall men make more money than short ones.

    It’s Landsberg, so I’ll be dubious about the study he cites, but the whole “Tall men earn more” is pretty solidly established.

  22. Catherine
    Catherine September 14, 2011 at 5:54 pm |

    What is this concept of “women have the option of not working?” Where does that even come from? Is the good doctor living in Connecticut circa 1949?

  23. Tori
    Tori September 14, 2011 at 9:19 pm |

    Catherine:
    What is this concept of “women have the option of not working?” Where does that even come from? Is the good doctor living in Connecticut circa 1949?

    Psshht! I totally have the option of living in a cardboard box (during monsoons) and eating cactus.

    Note: Cactus can be quite tasty, actually, but generally one wants modern culinary implements to remove the spines.

  24. umami
    umami September 15, 2011 at 5:11 am |

    Economist logic is basically troll logic most of the time, isn’t it?

    I read Hamermesh’s papers before. He does control for self confidence, IIRC by rating people’s looks when they were 18 and assuming that self confidence correlated to looks would have developed before that time. It was a long time ago I read that;I could have it wrong.

    But with his “men have it worse” bit he’s not doing some ridiculous whine– he’s actually trying to explain something he saw in the data. That study did show a much larger impact of male looks on salary than female looks on salary. I think his “ugly women voluntarily drop out of the workforce” explanation for this finding is obvious bullshit, (and it’s an explanation only an economist would have come up with.) But it was a very interesting finding.

    Personally I think it’s two things.
    1) Straight men are still the largest group of managers. They’ll be conscious that they evaluate women on the basis of their looks, and correct for that to some extent. They’re probably a lot less conscious that they are also evaluating men on that basis, and so don’t correct for it.
    2.) Good looking men are masculine. Good looking women are feminine. Masculinity is seen as an unambiguously desirable quality. Femininity is not. Probably the rewards for attractiveness for good looking women are muted a little by an increased penalty for seeming more feminine.
    1& 2 sort of sync up together, via Jill’s observation that very attractive women are often accused of having got jobs on the basis of their attractiveness.

  25. Rich
    Rich September 15, 2011 at 6:35 am |

    This may be off topic but I just saw a sound bite on the news about a guy in NYC posting signs that tell guys to pull up their fucking pants! (He did not use those words exactly but you get the point) There’s a pic on the sign of a guy with his pants falling down to reveal his underwear. Apparently, the guy who posted them is now in a bit of trouble because it’s illegal to just post random signs. The media interviewed him and he seemed very sincere about it. I thought it was funny but some young people don’t like being told how to dress or not to dress.

  26. kungfulola
    kungfulola September 15, 2011 at 10:17 pm |

    Z S:
    But who gets to decide if you are ugly? Do you have to accept an offical designation to pursue action? If you later cure your horrible skin condition, get a better suited haircut and redesign your wardrobe to flatter, will you be re-designated as “normal” or attractive looking and lose the right to sue?

    If you read the methodology, you will see that they found that people generally do have a measurable amount of beauty – people who are rated as a “5” by one person, will be consistently rated as a “5”-ish by others. This is also cross-cultural, and becoming more homogenized across races and nationalities, according to the research cited in “Beauty Pays”.

    They also found that everyone has a “beauty baseline”; someone who is considered a 5 with no makeup or before a nosejob, only gains one or two points from applying makeup or grooming themselves, even with plastic surgery. Also, people consider faces more than body type when asked to rate attractiveness; those who were heavier but not extremely large were rated equally with those who had the same level of facial beauty but were thinner. We have unconscious positive reactions to people we think of as beautiful, it’s possible that we are attuned to blow past artifice and judge people based on unalterable features.

Comments are closed.

The commenting period has expired for this post. If you wish to re-open the discussion, please do so in the latest Open Thread.