Readers may recall the comical Marxist Bea Campbell and her urge to see the population being enlisted by an egalitarian state, in which “emancipating governance” would be based, rather curiously, on greater state control. Ms Campbell’s other convictions include a belief that Erich Honecker was more “progressive” than David Cameron, and that families and civil society are, everywhere, “riven by power, patriarchy, conflict and the unequal distribution of resources and respect.” To which, less than seriously, I added:
It isn’t clear how one might ensure that “respect” is distributed in an egalitarian fashion. Perhaps the same approach could be applied to other inequities in life – fashion sense, talent or the possession of pleasing features.
Well. Here’s a lesson for us all. Don’t joke about these things.
Herb Deutsch steers us to the New York Times, where Professor Daniel S. Hamermesh has unearthed a shocking truth:
Being good-looking is useful in so many ways. In addition to whatever personal pleasure it gives you, being attractive also helps you earn more money, find a higher-earning spouse… and get better deals on mortgages.
Naturally, he asks:
How could we remedy this injustice?
A “radical solution” is proposed, albeit of a kind that crops up remarkably often:
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… We could even have affirmative-action programmes for the ugly.
Good luck marketing that. “Excuse me, madam. Has anyone told you that you bear a striking resemblance to a fire-damaged troll and may have special needs? Step this way…” Oh, come on. Who wouldn’t want to be regarded as officially ugly? Imagine the compensation claims by failed, overweight actors with dodgy teeth, and leather-faced strippers with asymmetrical breasts. Perhaps we should all apply for a job as the new face of Cosmetics Company X, then cry discrimination and threaten law suits when politely shown the door. It could be a lucrative hustle. And what about the short, the overly tall, the inarticulate or the shy? Do we draw a line somewhere, or do we go on indefinitely, compensating all possible categories of human imperfection?
The mechanics of legislating this kind of protection are not as difficult as you might think… For purposes of administering a law, we surely could agree on who is truly ugly, perhaps the worst-looking 1 or 2 percent of the population.
Professor Hamermesh does, eventually, pause to consider possible downsides of fixing the human condition in ever more inventive, expensive and intrusive ways:
With increasingly tight limits on government resources, expanding rights to yet another protected group would reduce protection for groups that have commanded our legislative and other attention for over 50 years.
Well, maybe we could take a different approach, one more likely to satisfy advocates of aesthetic egalitarianism. Perhaps a system of corrective bruising, abrasion and facial clamps for anyone prettier than, say, me. Or would that be a little too on the nose?
Makeover subsidies now! It’s only fair.
Everyone should have to turn up for job interviews wearing hoods.
“Oh, come on. Who wouldn’t want to be regarded as officially ugly?”
Well, I’ve been unofficially ugly all my life, so it might as well be official, and if it gets me a state handout …
facial clamps…?
“facial clamps…?”
Think about it. You know it makes sense.
The guy must have read Kurt Vonnegut’s “Harrison Bergeron” and took it as a policy paper rather than satire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron
Talking of ugly, has anyone else seen Bea Campbell’s mug? It looks like one of the patrons of the Mos Eisley cantina.
Oops, I should have looked at your “it makes sense” link first, David.
Anyway, RIP satire.
Imagine the compensation claims by failed, overweight actors with dodgy teeth and leather-faced strippers with asymmetrical breasts.
I wish to know more about these asymmetrical breasts.
Woohoo, at last I can claim victim status.
Am I more victimised than a sexy lesbian or handsome Asian man?
Relative ugliness is easily rectified by the solution known as “beer goggles”.
If the population is permanently inebriated it either won’t know or won’t care. I’ll make a start tonight.
an inexpensive but surprisingly effective remedy
http://ididafunny.com/index.php/igoogled-rubberband-face/
Imagine the outrage when activists notice that transvestites disproportionately get classified as “ugly as a dude in a dress” They’ll require ugliness compensation as well as group compensation for insulting & discriminating against an entire class of people. ALL the interest groups will love it.
If a woman doesn’t wear makeup or do her hair on some days will she get partial compensation?
we surely could agree on who is truly ugly
He must not get out much. I confess it would be a certain kind of fun to say “Sorry, feminists. What you (or I ) may think doesn’t matter : Frida Kahlo is now an officially a government certified dog” Surely investing the government with power over the control of the “official” aesthetics of society and linking it to money would lead to the most evenhanded approach. LOL
I shudder to think what would happen if governments were allowed to assess the respective merits of beauty and ugliness.
Hang on, won’t this risk straying off into the realms of racism ? I think it’s a truth universally acknowledged that some ethnic groups are better looking than others ( I’ve heard Belgians described as having faces like melted buckets ). Are we to suggest that they be disadvantaged in order to improve the lot of a bunch of plug uglies in another continent ? No more mail order Thai or Slav brides, from now on it’s Cardiff or nothing.
Roseanne Barr has as much right to leading roles as Ann Hathaway.
I suppose if Hamermesh has his way, all the ‘adult’ video companies in the San Fernando valley would be obliged to make films in which all the actors – whether they were male or female, straight or gay – would look like Ron Jeremy.
So Harrison Bergamon wasn’t fiction after all?
Apologies. Just spotted the previous mention of the Vonnegut story. My bad, as the yoofs say
As the left say they have to compensate, then that’s a societal cost, and using the NHS meddle-template they might start insisting ugly people do not mate…
Of course the urge to Eugenics is purely right wing and not Fabian at all.