3 ms·

> A manager sits behind a table and decides he’s going to fire a woman because he doesn’t like her skin. If he fires her because her skin is brown, we call that

by bko 5y ago

> A manager sits behind a table and decides he’s going to fire a woman because he doesn’t like her skin. If he fires her because her skin is brown, we call that racism and there is legal recourse. If he fires her because her skin is female, we call that sexism and there is legal recourse. If he fires her because her skin is pockmarked and he finds her unattractive, well, we don’t talk about that much and, in most places in America, there is no legal recourse. 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?

techbio 5y ago
Describing the three scenarios in parallel is a rhetorical technique to raise the question of why some are protected by law and custom, and some are not, in roughly similar outcomes. 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.
- Zababa 5y ago
  > in professions that ostensibly have nothing to do with attractiveness 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.
  - techbio 5y ago
    I really don't think other people's existence creates your emotional response. As an adult, you do. Discrimination against people for unalterable characteristics can affect theirs in pretty obviously damaging ways.
  - rhino369 5y ago
    You could have made that same argument about minorities in 1955. And people did.
  - spins 5y ago
    To access NY Times articles, just google search the name of their article. You most often will then find their entire article, reprinted in full, thru another source.
- bko 5y ago
  It's not clear cut in case of "ugly". The term could be defined as unpleasant to look at or be around. They could be unpleasant because of past decisions that reflect on their personal choices and attitudes. If someone is morbidly obese, they likely have an issue with over-eating. If someone is un-groomed, it likely reflects on other aspects of their personality. So "ugliness" doesn't exist in a vacuum. And these social science studies especially around something so subjective as appearance are not reliable IMO.
  - techbio 5y ago
    I also tend to mistrust social sciences studies, and I'd agree that they could be any of those things. Or, the person could be an otherwise perfectly well-kempt child of alcoholics, the victim of assault, or anything else divergent from the subjective preferences of whoever calls the shots. 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.
snet0 5y ago
It's not a strawman, it's a hypothetical. Depending on your culture, you might struggle to imagine a manager firing a black employee for their skin colour. We still have legal protections for this, though, and I'm doubtful there's much disagreement about them. 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?
- MattGaiser 5y ago
  Also, they are hard to separate concepts in practice. You get stuff like this: https://www.colorlines.com/articles/pseudoscience-black-women-are-less-attractive https://www.colorlines.com/articles/pseudoscience-black-wome... https://www.npr.org/2018/01/09/575352051/least-desirable-how-racial-discrimination-plays-out-in-online-dating 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-skinned-black-girls-dont-get-married https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/apr/08/dark-sk...
edmundsauto 5y ago
Do you think that person (who fires people arbitrarily) doesn't exist for ugly people, but does for sexism/racism? Oe do you think this is a strawman argument for all 3 (ugly/sex/race)? If it's the latter, then we probably are too far apart to continue the conversation. If it's the former, then I'm really curious to know more about why.
- bko 5y ago
  "Ugly" is a bit of a broad term. What does it mean? It's basically someone who is unpleasant to be around or look at. So if the person is unkempt, has physical ailments from substance abuse, doesn't practice regular grooming, or is obese, he or she would be considered "ugly". But is that an innate characteristic or manifestations of personal decisions? And where do you draw the line? Do you have a right to show up to work without showering (something Steve Jobs did at Atari and they dealt with it without laws!) 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.
  - edmundsauto 5y ago
    There are words for these other things, so while "ugly" is a broad term, there are significant genetic components. Facial symmetry, body shape, skin color and tone. 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".
BugsJustFindMe 5y ago
> 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) You think that an ugly person can't bring you cocktails just as competently as a pretty one? Job performance indeed.
- Nevermark 5y ago
  If more people buy more cocktails from attractive servers, a business has a legitimate reason to include attractiveness in their hiring decisions. 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.
  - BugsJustFindMe 5y ago
    I guess the argument there is that almighty profit justifies cynically discriminatory means? I can understand that libertarian perspective, but it's not the world that I prefer to support. "Business reasons" is sometimes code for prejudicial behavior that we would not otherwise countenance.
nonononoyes 5y ago
That's not an example of a straw man, and if you had read the rest of the article you'd learn it's not arbitrary.
naasking 5y ago
> This is such a straw man argument. Who is this person that fires people arbitrarily? Does he not have a business to run? 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.
- thedailymail 5y ago
  >
- thedailymail 5y ago
  > 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?)

by bko 5y ago

techbio 5y ago

Describing the three scenarios in parallel is a rhetorical technique to raise the question of why some are protected by law and custom, and some are not, in roughly similar outcomes. 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.

Zababa 5y ago
> in professions that ostensibly have nothing to do with attractiveness 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.
- techbio 5y ago
  I really don't think other people's existence creates your emotional response. As an adult, you do. Discrimination against people for unalterable characteristics can affect theirs in pretty obviously damaging ways.
- rhino369 5y ago
  You could have made that same argument about minorities in 1955. And people did.
- spins 5y ago
  To access NY Times articles, just google search the name of their article. You most often will then find their entire article, reprinted in full, thru another source.
bko 5y ago
It's not clear cut in case of "ugly". The term could be defined as unpleasant to look at or be around. They could be unpleasant because of past decisions that reflect on their personal choices and attitudes. If someone is morbidly obese, they likely have an issue with over-eating. If someone is un-groomed, it likely reflects on other aspects of their personality. So "ugliness" doesn't exist in a vacuum. And these social science studies especially around something so subjective as appearance are not reliable IMO.
- techbio 5y ago
  I also tend to mistrust social sciences studies, and I'd agree that they could be any of those things. Or, the person could be an otherwise perfectly well-kempt child of alcoholics, the victim of assault, or anything else divergent from the subjective preferences of whoever calls the shots. 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.

snet0 5y ago

It's not a strawman, it's a hypothetical. Depending on your culture, you might struggle to imagine a manager firing a black employee for their skin colour. We still have legal protections for this, though, and I'm doubtful there's much disagreement about them. 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?

MattGaiser 5y ago
Also, they are hard to separate concepts in practice. You get stuff like this: https://www.colorlines.com/articles/pseudoscience-black-women-are-less-attractive https://www.colorlines.com/articles/pseudoscience-black-wome... https://www.npr.org/2018/01/09/575352051/least-desirable-how-racial-discrimination-plays-out-in-online-dating 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-skinned-black-girls-dont-get-married https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/apr/08/dark-sk...

edmundsauto 5y ago

Do you think that person (who fires people arbitrarily) doesn't exist for ugly people, but does for sexism/racism? Oe do you think this is a strawman argument for all 3 (ugly/sex/race)? If it's the latter, then we probably are too far apart to continue the conversation. If it's the former, then I'm really curious to know more about why.

bko 5y ago
"Ugly" is a bit of a broad term. What does it mean? It's basically someone who is unpleasant to be around or look at. So if the person is unkempt, has physical ailments from substance abuse, doesn't practice regular grooming, or is obese, he or she would be considered "ugly". But is that an innate characteristic or manifestations of personal decisions? And where do you draw the line? Do you have a right to show up to work without showering (something Steve Jobs did at Atari and they dealt with it without laws!) 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.
- edmundsauto 5y ago
  There are words for these other things, so while "ugly" is a broad term, there are significant genetic components. Facial symmetry, body shape, skin color and tone. 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".

BugsJustFindMe 5y ago

> 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) You think that an ugly person can't bring you cocktails just as competently as a pretty one? Job performance indeed.

Nevermark 5y ago
If more people buy more cocktails from attractive servers, a business has a legitimate reason to include attractiveness in their hiring decisions. 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.
- BugsJustFindMe 5y ago
  I guess the argument there is that almighty profit justifies cynically discriminatory means? I can understand that libertarian perspective, but it's not the world that I prefer to support. "Business reasons" is sometimes code for prejudicial behavior that we would not otherwise countenance.

nonononoyes 5y ago

That's not an example of a straw man, and if you had read the rest of the article you'd learn it's not arbitrary.

naasking 5y ago

> This is such a straw man argument. Who is this person that fires people arbitrarily? Does he not have a business to run? 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.

thedailymail 5y ago
>
thedailymail 5y ago
> 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?)