discrimination, equality

Discrimination (14): Lookism

barbie and ken

Lookism means discrimination, stereotyping or prejudice based on how people look, and preferential treatment of the physically attractive, the tall, the non-fat and those with the right skin color. I feel the need to revisit the topic, since a previous post on heightism – one form of lookism – was a complete failure. While trying to make the point that heightism, historically speaking, caused much less harm than other forms of prejudice – such as racial or gender prejudice – I managed to offend a lot of short people, and was scolded for it in comments. In my defense, I wanted to talk about preferential treatment based on a few inches of height difference; I understand perfectly well that there is a stigma attached to very short people. However, it seems that this point didn’t come across and I take full responsibility for that.

So, in order to state things clearly from the start and avoid a similar miscommunication: I agree that lookism is a real and serious form of discrimination imposing real harm on those who suffer from it. How serious compared to other types of discrimination? Let’s just ignore that question for the moment and focus on the topic at hand. “Serious enough” will do.

no more lookismIn general, it helps to understand lookism as a form of beauty bias. Many instances of preferential treatment or discrimination based on the way people look are actually about the perceived beauty or lack of beauty of the targets. That’s true even for heightism, since height is often associated with beauty and lack of it with ugliness. Beautiful people – or, better, people generally considered as beautiful – get a lot of advantages in life. They earn more, even in professions where looks wouldn’t seem to matter and even if they aren’t more intelligent or productive. Finding a job, getting a promotion and getting a loan are some of the things that are easier with good looks. And beautiful people are also better at finding mates and getting elected in democratic elections. I could go on.

Some of these advantages result not from direct discrimination by others who prefer beautiful people. Beauty may result in higher self-confidence, and then it’s self-confidence rather than beauty that convinces others to give beautiful people a job or a promotion. But the fact that beauty comes with self-confidence is probably the result of society’s bias towards beauty. There’s also some evidence that taller people have higher average cognitive abilities, which would mean that a wage premium for height is justifiable and not a form of discrimination. Still, an abilities gap doesn’t rule out lookism, since taller children may be treated preferentially by their parents and educators, giving them a head start. This head start then explains their supposedly higher abilities later in life. Even if rewarded according to their abilities, we’re still talking about discrimination.

While some of the undeserved advantages that go to the beautiful are difficult to correct (we wouldn’t want to regulate mating), others are not, given the right form of anti-discrimination legislation. Some form of correction via legislation is necessary especially when preferential treatment results in violations of equal human rights for some. However, legislation can have some serious drawbacks (see here), so we’ll have to be careful.

More posts in this series are here.

(image source)
Standard

4 thoughts on “Discrimination (14): Lookism

  1. Glen says:

    What utter drivel. Didn’t anyone ever teach you that beauty is in the eye of the beholder? Self confidence comes from within.

    Discrimination and prejudice is made by ‘others’. The reasons for doing this are wide and varied. Yet the universal law of discrimination is that the discriminator directly or indirectly benefits somehow from the abuse [yes abuse]. OR this discrimination would not take place. Hopefully that is plain enough English for you.

    You are upholding the argument for prejudice against people and seem to conclude that they deserve what they get in life. The short straw [no pun intended].

    I wonder what your thoughts are on young girls who go out dressed up and then get ‘attacked’ by a guy. No… wait, don’t bother answering that. I can see your reply already formulating in my mind. I am currently now discriminating against you. You cannot change my mind, no matter what extra drivel you choose to write.

    Have a great life.

  2. Pingback: The Ethics of Human Rights (83): The Snowball Effect of Equality of Opportunity | P.a.p.-Blog // Human Rights Etc.

  3. Pingback: What is Democracy? (71): An Instantaneous Face-Based Competence Assessment | P.a.p.-Blog // Human Rights Etc.

  4. Pingback: The Causes of Human Rights Violations (55): Bad Luck | P.a.p.-Blog // Human Rights Etc.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s