(H/T – Stacy McCain, who I have been ignoring for far too long)
I can’t write nearly as eloquently, or use nearly as many words in doing so, as Stacy, but this New York Times piece from Daniel S. Hamermesh on how the ugly could and should use the courts to compensate for what genetics and a lifetime of self-abuse didn’t give them just rubs me the wrong way:
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.
Mind you, my face could turn Medusa to stone so I would potentially stand to gain from it, but this is just wrong. I’ll let Stacy’s close speak to that:
We cannot resent the world for being the way it is. Or if we do, we are no better than liberals chasing after the ridiculous illusion of “social justice.” So unless we wish to see a lot of ugly people on TV — think of The View, minus Elizabeth Hasselback — there is no point complaining that the medium prefers pretty people. (And I say that at 3:20 p.m. ET, while Shep Smith is on Fox News.)
That reminds me; Shoebox and I had better get a Rule 5-qualifier as a third leg to this place.
