Monday, August 29, 2011

" to the looks-challenged?"

I really could not believe this story was real. I figured some news service picked up on an old "joke" of Rush Limbaugh's.

My chin is now bruised from when it dropped and hit my desk when I found the URL.

There are some many things wrong with this story, so many.

The first is, what are we, animals? Have we not 'evolved' past this point? I guess according to scientist's the logical thinking brain is non-existent in the business world.
"Oh wait, this might not be a the best train of thought with the state of business currently." Anyway....

Secondly, beauty is subjective, very dependent on culture. Who's base line are you going to use? In reality most 'ugly' people can do a lot to make themselves appear average, if not delightful. Hollywood has gone both ways. TV shows to make the ugly to average look amazing, and in movies the actress is made to look ugly.

Thirdly, doesn't taking care of how you look hahave a bearing on how you look and are perceived? A confident women that is labeled by the "dudes" of this writer's ilk as average can have men's attention because she knows how to play up her positive and detract from the negative. She is confident, dresses to her body type and can hold an intelligent and enjoyable conversation. Compare that with the model that walks in, won't talk to people or can't hold a conversation, won't smile, is self absorbed and looks totally bored? The model will attract her like kind. You can paint up plain and ugly to amazing. But amazing looks can't be painted to smart.

Fourth, the only kind of beauty if physical?

Fifth, are my tax dollars really paying for this?

Lastly"", ...with the chance of obtaining extra pay and promotions amounting to $230,000...", they would allow themselves to be classified as ugly. NO, that is called GREED and having your self-worth tagged with a dollar amount. Plus, to make this law suit work the 'ugly' person would have to prove they were 'ugly' and someone in the company would have to admit that they are shallow and limited in their views to proceed with the law suit. No one is a winner at this point.

Yes, being good looking helps, to a point! I've watched interviews were the female architects were equally qualified and the physically prettier one was hired. She was no was no beauty to work with, though. I've also heard department heads say that certain engineers were not to go to clients because of how they looked. Funny the attractive ones were sent, messed up the job and cost the company money!
Maybe with those two anecdotes I actually prove the writers thesis and we are base line animals.

The last paragraph is very insightful: "You might reasonably disagree and argue for protecting all deserving groups. Either way, you shouldn’t be surprised to see the United States heading toward this new legal frontier". This is what we've dropped to? Labeling hence limiting people? Have these people not learned anything? People will achieve to the level you set for them.

If the writer himself is physically ugly or not, I find him hideous to be perpetrating this discussion on the wrong pathway.

No comments: