ALEX writes:

In one more step in the march to true equality, the Left has identified another group in need of protection and with a potential for enlarging the Democrats’ voter base: less attractive people, who, of course, are discriminated against in all areas of life in favor of more attractive people:

Tentatively, experts are beginning to float possible solutions. Some have proposed legal remedies including designating unattractive people as a protected class, creating affirmative action programs for the homely, or compensating disfigured but otherwise healthy people in personal-injury courts. Others have suggested using technology to help fight the bias, through methods like blind interviews that take attraction out of job selection. There’s promising evidence from psychology that good old-fashioned consciousness-raising has a role to play, too.

[…]

A number of scholars see it as fundamentally a civil-rights issue, with the unattractive a class of people who are provably and consistently discriminated against.

There is talk of extending the Americans with Disabilities Act to include the unattractive.

Most of the linked article is devoted to complaining that noticing differences between people is deeply ingrained in human nature, and proposing ways to suppress human nature, which is necessary to make everyone equal. Everything that makes us human must be ripped out of us.

The calls to mandate the hiring of unattractive actors, TV announcers, models, etc. highlight another result of liberalism: destroying the beauty of life and not just promoting but mandating ugliness everywhere.

Harrison Bergeron was not satire; it was prophesy.

— Comments —

Karl D. writes:

This is slightly off-topic but concerns “protected classes.” There is one class I can think of that is routinely picked on, shunned, insulted, and looked down upon by both left and some on the right: Smokers. Not many people realize this, but if you are a smoker it is now close to impossible to rent an apartment or home. Especially in liberal regions like the Northeast or West coast, although it is fast becoming common almost everywhere. Just take a look at your local real estate section and you will see what I mean. Smokers as a “Class” are fair game. If a smoker does not have the funds to buy his own home he is just out of luck. He could be the most decent, responsible, God-fearing guy on the planet. But if he is a smoker,the game is over. To find a decent place to live, he usually has to lie and go to extreme measures to cover said lie. I find it interesting however that a landlord can be forced to rent to minorities, homosexuals, Muslims, disabled, as well as both sexes and will even gladly rent to pot heads, morbidly obese, people he suspects are drinkers or Asians who cook 24/7 with fish, oil and everything else under the sun. But a guy who likes to smoke a cigarette with a beer when he gets home from work is beyond the pale. Still, I believe a property owner should be able to choose to rent to whomever he pleases.

P.S. It is also interesting that a huge chunk of smokers are working class whites.

Teegen writes:

I have enjoyed reading your blog since I found it a few weeks ago. Thank you for your wonderful posts and discussions.

Regarding your most recent post, if beauty really is subjective, as is claimed, how would unattractiveness be determined? There must a standard of beauty.

 Laura writes:

Thank you.

The linked article from The Boston Globe includes this:

As subjective as “beauty” sounds, human beings agree to remarkable degree on who is attractive and who is not. Beauty, as it turns out, is not in the eye of the beholder. Generally, it means feminine features for women, like large eyes and a round face, and masculine features for men, like a square jaw. Even newborn infants have been shown to prefer gazing at faces adults agree are attractive.

This is true and, in general, this is one form of discrimination that will never be eradicated. But perhaps a few ugly people will be hired here and there to help the cause.

Donald writes:

Just when you think things couldn’t get any more Kafkaesque , the Progs ratchet it up a notch. I have long wondered why many on the Left tended to be unattractive. I have mentioned this notion before, and I bet many thought I was being unkind or mean, but it is a curiosity that arose from repeated observations.

Just how will the federal apparatus rectify the plight of the homely? If ugliness is to be a special civil rights class, who is to decide who is ugly? Will there be a government Ugly Panel? Will a persons image be assesses by a group of Phd’d aestheticians? And do the unattractive see themselves that way and how would they prove they are ugly?

Progressives are constantly tilting at windmills. They should change their moniker from Progressives to Bizarros.

Laura writes:

I think this is mostly just talk and not much will come of it, except the general idea that life is unfair.

I have long wondered why many on the Left tended to be unattractive. 

I don’t think that is especially true. The most powerful and most attractive people are liberals. Hollywood celebrities are not generally ugly, although they do wear ugly clothes.

Megasaint writes:

Laura writes: “I don’t think that is especially true. The most powerful and most attractive people are liberals. Hollywood celebrities are not generally ugly, although they do wear ugly clothes.”

CORRECT!

Sexual liberals and promiscuous men and women tend to be the “beautiful” people. Most powerful Democrats and liberal politicians and celebrities and singers are also attractive. Infamous radical activist lesbians, bi and homosexual celebrities, and sex blog columnists are also attractive ones. Porn actors and actress are attractive. Whores and gigolos are also attractive [Laura writes: Often they are not.] Anarchist radical, feminist and glbt activists like Lady Gaga, Madonna, Miley Cyrus, etc. are all labelled as “beautiful” too. The infamous Femen women’s group are also attractive women.

On the other hand, social conservatives and right-wing people tend to be non-attractive and on consequence of this, they are less sexually active or even still virgins and stay like that for ever.  [Laura writes: I have not noticed that. Edmund Burke was pretty cute.]

Earl writes:

This post is good news. Progressives will look to society to see who is most privileged by beauty bias, and conclude that as a class, white women need to have some redistribution done, to the benefit of men as a class. Right? Goodbye, feminism.

Laura writes:

I think ugly women would come ahead of all men.

Steve D. writes:

If beauty is now a form of oppression, can truth be far behind?

Laura writes:

It’s the other way around. Since truth has become oppression, beauty has to go.

Please follow and like us: