This article, written by career feminist Lindsay Beyerstein, is over a month old and was written shortly after the Deborahlee Lorenzana story came to light, but it is nonetheless an important look into the worldview of liberal women.
In her provocative new book,The Beauty Bias: The Injustice of Appearance in Law and Life, Stanford law professor Deborah Rhode argues that workers deserve legal protection against appearance-based discrimination unless their looks are directly relevant to their job performance. [...]Considering that leftists rant about racism, sexism, heteronormativity, cisgendierism, ableism, classism, ageism, and sizism I am not surprised that some feminist law professor wants to ban "lookism." In case anyone's curious, this is what the anti-lookist professor looks like.
It should go without saying that discrimination on the basis of appearance is unjust, especially when it comes to features individuals have little or no control over.Actually, it should not go without saying. Only a liberal woman could write such an ignorant statement. Does she realize that, barring an odd fetish, even the most feminized, beta, herb liberal mangina still would have a much more positive reaction to a 9 model than he would an obese 2? If discriminating on the basis of appearance is unjust, then as physical appearances tend to be very important to men when selecting a mate, most men are unjust.
She is incorrect when she claims that people have little or no control over their appearances. They can become fat if they are sedentary and eat too much. They can stay fit if they exercise and eat right. They can become muscular if they lift weights (among other things).
Aside from exercising, there are plenty of ways to change your appearance. Buying new clothing can enhance your appearance. Hair dye gives you a new hair color. Make-up improves womens' faces (and mens' in some cultures). Fair women can tan. Dark women can use skin lightener.
Prior to feminism's triumph, women did a lot of things to improve their appearances. They took care of themselves; they wore make-up when going out; they wore skirts, dresses, and jackets; they wore feminine hats; they wore stockings; etc. It's only up until recently in Western history that women have taken to not caring about their appearances.
Also, it doesn't take that much work to avoid becoming obese. I'm a computer nerd, a member of a group not known for physical prowess, yet I exercise daily. It really is not very hard.
Rhode does a good job of spelling out why such bias is offensive to human dignity and equal opportunity. [...]Equal opportunity sounds nice on paper, but in reality it doesn't work. Everyone is not equal. Some people are stronger, smarter, faster, smaller, larger, more dominant, or more attractive than others. No amount of liberal social engineering and legislation can change this.
The increasing prevalence of obesity in America has done nothing to curb virulent prejudice against fat people. Ironically, immobilizing obesity is protected as a disability, but discrimination based purely on cosmetic aversion to fat is totally legal.It is perfectly legal because most people, even liberal manginas, think women who look like they could wrestle a bear and win are disgusting.
In one study, 43 percent of overweight women reported feeling stigmatized by their employers.As they should be. If the remaining stigmas against fat were destroyed, most women in America would probably become lard buckets. Most men would too, for that matter.
Obese women earn 12 percent less than their thinner counterparts with comparable qualifications. Obese women are more likely to live in poverty, even after controlling for other factors.So, why shouldn't women who take care of themselves be rewarded? Obesity is largely a result of lack of self control and absence of willpower. People with no self-control are more likely to waste their money, so it is obvious that they will be more likely to end up in poverty.
Her most egregious assault on reality comes with this statement:
Rhode notes that beauty bias also exacerbates and perpetuates other kinds of discrimination. Female workers are held to more elaborate grooming standards than their male counterparts. [...]What universe is she living in? At every level, men are held to higher grooming standards than women. Many lower-class retail/service jobs prohibit men from having long hair, whereas I've never heard of any employer prohibiting short, dykish haircuts on women.
Workplace appearance standards in general are stricter regarding men than women. Ties are often required in service industry jobs, yet they are not for women (this is not considered discrimination by the government, although it's a guarantee that the reverse would be). Many workplaces specify attire for men, but allow women to basically wear anything except jeans. In workplaces requring professional dress, the men will be covered from the neck down with jackets, ties, slacks, button-down shirts, close-toed shoes, and socks, while women can get away with wearing sleeveless shirts, garments that are essentially T-shirts, no jackets, skirts with bare legs, and sandals.
There's a lot of overlap between appearance discrimination and racism. Some have speculated that coworkers perceived Lorenzana in a more sexualized way because she's Latina. Stereotypically Anglo-European features like smooth hair, slim hips, and pert noses loom large in our prevailing beauty ideals.Is there anything liberals dislike that is not racist? And what is "Anglo-European"? I've never heard that word before. Is that a term referring to English people residing on the Continent?
There's a class component in beauty bias, too. A gleaming smile engineered by an orthodontist is a badge of membership in the middle class. As we all know, poverty increases the risk of obesity.So not only is appearance discrimination racist, but it's classist, too! It's like a discrimination doubleheader.
Also, poverty doesn't increase the risk of obesity. Ultimately, low IQ causes both since people with low IQs are likely to have low time preferences and poor decision-making skills. Not that I'd expect a liberal feminist to acknowledge that.
Rhode acknowledges that the law can only do so much to mitigate the effects of such deep-seated prejudices, but she argues that the enormity of the problem is no excuse for inaction. Sexism, racism and homophobia are certainly ingrained, but that doesn't mean that the law is powerless against them. As segregationists said in the era of Brown, you can't legally force people not to be bigots. On the other hand, when you discourage people from acting like bigots, tolerance can become a habit.So because the War Against Racism has gone very well, we should extend it to battling the evils of appearance discrimination. Fifty years ago, blacks and whites went to separate schools, lived in separate neighborhoods, and worshiped at separate churches. Today, it's the same, if not worse since in the 1950s most blacks weren't born to single women. A War Against Appearance Discrimination would be even more ineffective, since it would be difficult to prevent someone from having a visceral reaction upon seeing a bloated, obsese colossus or a woman who got smacked with an ugly stick.
Most people with racist views like myself are not biologically hardwired to view blacks as prone to crime or to view Asians as excelling in school (remember, even positive stereotypes are bad!). These views come from statistical evidence and personal experience. However, as Beyerstein notes in her article, even infants have a more positive reaction to people with attractive faces. Appearance discrimination is part of our biology.
Even after a couple decades of brainwashing schoolchildren with "body acceptance" propaganda, it still exists. Feminists will be unable to eradicate it from our society, no matter how much they try. All they will do is attack another aspect of freedom of association and thrust upon us another destructive bureaucracy.
In modern America, it is unacceptable to hold women to any form of standards related to sexuality, including appearance. Combined with the elite's veneration of equality no matter how absurd and laws against appearance discrimination are the natural consequence.
However, I think there's a more personal motive in Beyerstein's article on appearance discrimination. She's the blond in the picture below.