Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What the world looks like thru the eyes of an

bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 11:51:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
unattractive woman.

It's eye-opening.

http://www.reddit.com...

Discuss!
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 7:12:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
"but on the other hand, it's impossible to find a retail job,"

Oh so it's just not my imagination playing tricks on me thinking that it seems alot of women working in retail on average are alot better looking that women on average.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 9:14:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I understand there is a lesson for us here - to not base how we treat people on their looks - but I cannot help but wonder why this woman hasn't just found somebody in her... price range, if you will... to love her. She acts like everybody in the world thinks she is trash, but what about the unattractive guys in her life? No mention of them at all? Why is she hanging out at bars worrying about what players and bar-tenders think about her? Anybody can come up with a paragraph of complaints about society. I've heard stories like this from women who feel they are TOO attractive, and complain that they scare guys off (at least the good ones, I am guessing) and therefore remain single. I have personally been single over a year and sometimes I feel like writing a thread like this - but then I realize how ignorant it would make me look - and rightly so!
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Jonbonbon
Posts: 2,760
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2014 4:17:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 11:51:44 PM, bluesteel wrote:
unattractive woman.

It's eye-opening.

http://www.reddit.com...

Discuss!

Where's the tl;dr?
The Troll Queen.

I'm also the Troll Goddess of Reason. Sacrifices are appreciated but not necessary.

"I'm a vivacious sex fiend," SolonKR.

Go vote on one of my debates. I'm not that smart, so it'll probably be an easy decision.

Fite me m9

http://www.debate.org...
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,036
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2014 5:11:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Everyone places value on physical features. Just another reason to practice high standards when choosing who to breed with. It's not a good thing I suppose, but I'm a little biased due to my own body. Unattractiveness has never been an issue for me when it comes to physical features, so I don't really know the struggle from the other perspective.

If you're ugly, blame your parents for not having the sensibility to put two and two together when it comes to genetic influence over physical appearance of the potential child they'd create together. I never got why people complained about society when it is actually the parents responsibility to choose good mates. The royal families and upper class families have always known this, hence I don't understand the issue. This isn't going to change anytime soon, so either play to win or continue propagating a weak genetic line.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2014 5:33:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 9:14:07 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
I understand there is a lesson for us here - to not base how we treat people on their looks - but I cannot help but wonder why this woman hasn't just found somebody in her... price range, if you will... to love her. She acts like everybody in the world thinks she is trash, but what about the unattractive guys in her life? No mention of them at all? Why is she hanging out at bars worrying about what players and bar-tenders think about her? Anybody can come up with a paragraph of complaints about society. I've heard stories like this from women who feel they are TOO attractive, and complain that they scare guys off (at least the good ones, I am guessing) and therefore remain single. I have personally been single over a year and sometimes I feel like writing a thread like this - but then I realize how ignorant it would make me look - and rightly so!

She talks about that. It's because attraction isn't a choice. Telling her: "oh, just settle for an ugly, fat guy" doesn't work if she isn't attracted to those guys. She can try to give them more of a chance, but facts is: women are valued more for their looks than anything. Guys are often valued a bit more for their personalities, which means that guys that would be attracted to *her* are often *both* unattractive *and* have bad personalities.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2014 5:35:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/3/2014 4:17:14 PM, Jonbonbon wrote:
At 5/1/2014 11:51:44 PM, bluesteel wrote:
unattractive woman.

It's eye-opening.

http://www.reddit.com...

Discuss!

Where's the tl;dr?

tl;dr (1) be attractive; (2) don't be unattractive.....

Basically, she is invisible to guys, can't get a retail job, and faces the same discrimination at work (not being taken seriously) that hot women face, but she's ugly too so people won't even pretend to take her seriously cuz she's hot.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2014 5:38:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/3/2014 5:11:40 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
Everyone places value on physical features. Just another reason to practice high standards when choosing who to breed with. It's not a good thing I suppose, but I'm a little biased due to my own body. Unattractiveness has never been an issue for me when it comes to physical features, so I don't really know the struggle from the other perspective.

If you're ugly, blame your parents for not having the sensibility to put two and two together when it comes to genetic influence over physical appearance of the potential child they'd create together. I never got why people complained about society when it is actually the parents responsibility to choose good mates. The royal families and upper class families have always known this, hence I don't understand the issue. This isn't going to change anytime soon, so either play to win or continue propagating a weak genetic line.

lol, trollin?

The royal family in England is super ugly. But they tend to pick attractive mates. Sometimes your genetic line is just too f***ed up to fix, no matter how much hotness you inject into it.

Also, if you're already ugly, you can only breed with other ugly people. It's not really a "choice."

Not to mention it's silly to say that's it's okay to devalue someone because of an inherent trait that their parents had some control over. You could say the same thing about black people -- their parents should have married white people -- so blame the parents for discrimination. Ugo's have feelings too. End ugo discrimination.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
YYW
Posts: 36,305
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2014 5:38:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/3/2014 5:35:20 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 5/3/2014 4:17:14 PM, Jonbonbon wrote:
At 5/1/2014 11:51:44 PM, bluesteel wrote:
unattractive woman.

It's eye-opening.

http://www.reddit.com...

Discuss!

Where's the tl;dr?

tl;dr (1) be attractive; (2) don't be unattractive.....

Basically, she is invisible to guys, can't get a retail job, and faces the same discrimination at work (not being taken seriously) that hot women face, but she's ugly too so people won't even pretend to take her seriously cuz she's hot.

Do you make room for the possibility that there might be other reasons she can't get a retail job?
Tsar of DDO
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2014 5:44:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/3/2014 5:38:47 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/3/2014 5:35:20 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 5/3/2014 4:17:14 PM, Jonbonbon wrote:
At 5/1/2014 11:51:44 PM, bluesteel wrote:
unattractive woman.

It's eye-opening.

http://www.reddit.com...

Discuss!

Where's the tl;dr?

tl;dr (1) be attractive; (2) don't be unattractive.....

Basically, she is invisible to guys, can't get a retail job, and faces the same discrimination at work (not being taken seriously) that hot women face, but she's ugly too so people won't even pretend to take her seriously cuz she's hot.

Do you make room for the possibility that there might be other reasons she can't get a retail job?

Did you read it? She's clearly very smart; I doubt she didn't have the soft skills necessary.

Anything is "possible." But I take her at her word that being unattractive makes it hard to get retail jobs. Lawsuits against Abercrombie and Hollister have revealed that they tell their managers not to hire unattractive people for front of house.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,036
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2014 5:54:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/3/2014 5:38:23 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 5/3/2014 5:11:40 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
Everyone places value on physical features. Just another reason to practice high standards when choosing who to breed with. It's not a good thing I suppose, but I'm a little biased due to my own body. Unattractiveness has never been an issue for me when it comes to physical features, so I don't really know the struggle from the other perspective.

If you're ugly, blame your parents for not having the sensibility to put two and two together when it comes to genetic influence over physical appearance of the potential child they'd create together. I never got why people complained about society when it is actually the parents responsibility to choose good mates. The royal families and upper class families have always known this, hence I don't understand the issue. This isn't going to change anytime soon, so either play to win or continue propagating a weak genetic line.

lol, trollin?

Idk... I'm internally torn. I think it's such an easy thing - just don't mate with an ugly person. But after consideration, there are just so many other elements that come into mind when choosing a mate. I'll say yes to ease some minds but I do think potential parents have some responsibility, knowing how this society works, to ensure their children have the best chances at success as possible.

The royal family in England is super ugly. But they tend to pick attractive mates. Sometimes your genetic line is just too f***ed up to fix, no matter how much hotness you inject into it.

They are pretty ugly. I suppose I meant just royalty in general but you make a good point about sometimes it being beyond repair. I just know that families of extreme wealth and royalty or titles know that choosing a proper mate with ideal attributes is important for a desired outcome.

Also, if you're already ugly, you can only breed with other ugly people. It's not really a "choice."

Unless they make enough money to indirectly "buy" an attractive mate, i.e., gold-diggers with beautiful physical features dating ugly rich guys. That's always a way to break the trend I suppose. I've also seen some cases where beautiful girls who grew up/were exposed to abusive situations or who are unaware of their own beauty settle for guys who are sub-par and vice-versa.

Not to mention it's silly to say that's it's okay to devalue someone because of an inherent trait that their parents had some control over. You could say the same thing about black people -- their parents should have married white people -- so blame the parents for discrimination. Ugo's have feelings too. End ugo discrimination.

Yeah but that is more tied into racism not necessarily... wait, is there a term for bias or favoritism towards attractive people? That's the term I'm looking for the finish the sentence. Ultimately though, I agree that it's not necessarily okay to do so, but that it's a serious factor when wondering who to blame for your looks if you view yourself as sub-par physically.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,305
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2014 5:57:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/3/2014 5:44:50 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 5/3/2014 5:38:47 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/3/2014 5:35:20 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 5/3/2014 4:17:14 PM, Jonbonbon wrote:
At 5/1/2014 11:51:44 PM, bluesteel wrote:
unattractive woman.

It's eye-opening.

http://www.reddit.com...

Discuss!

Where's the tl;dr?

tl;dr (1) be attractive; (2) don't be unattractive.....

Basically, she is invisible to guys, can't get a retail job, and faces the same discrimination at work (not being taken seriously) that hot women face, but she's ugly too so people won't even pretend to take her seriously cuz she's hot.

Do you make room for the possibility that there might be other reasons she can't get a retail job?

Did you read it? She's clearly very smart; I doubt she didn't have the soft skills necessary.

I read the tl;dr. I'll read the whole thing later... but idk. Even if she's got the skills, that doesn't mean that she's going to get hired. I've actually worked a few retail jobs, one in a very high end store. First, let me just say that retail work sucks. Second, the only stores that actually won't hire based on appearances are very high end stores or lingerie stores. Of course, they wouldn't tell her that -but an ugly girl isn't going to get a job at a lingerie store for the same reason that a fat guy isn't going to get a job as a go-go boy at the strip club. Employee appearance is a part of the product. I don't really see any injustice there. But, I also know that retail stores are really reluctant to hire people who are over-qualified for the floor positions because they don't want to invest the time to train them only to have them find another job a few months down the road. The store doesn't get the same kind of return on investment as, say, a low-skilled employee who is more likely to stay. That same principle is why London won't hire a cop with an IQ over 120. (I sh!t you not. That's a thing.)

Even still, all else being equal, personality is the most decisive factor in retail hires. Introverts almost never get hired for jobs that require a lot of human contact. It's not meant to be discriminatory (even though it is), but it is endemic of a company making a smart choice for an employee. Likewise, it wouldn't make a lot of sense to put an extrovert who craved human interaction in a biochemical research lab. That's not to say in either case that an extrovert always will not get a retail job or that an extrovert wouldn't get the lab research position -but what's on your resume is only what get's you in the door.

Anything is "possible." But I take her at her word that being unattractive makes it hard to get retail jobs. Lawsuits against Abercrombie and Hollister have revealed that they tell their managers not to hire unattractive people for front of house.

Sure. Fat people are never going to get hired at Abercrombie, Victoria's Secret, etc. They might get hired to work the floor in Bloomingdales or Neimans, but in stores where sex is part of the marketing scheme people who are not sexy just aren't going to get jobs. Maybe that says something about the industry... and I'm sure it does. Believe me, I have all kinds of horrible things to say about Abercrombie -but I don't fault them for not hiring ugly people. I don't like it, but I also don't shop there... ever, because it's a company which, even if their clothes weren't sh!t, whose values I am in fundamental disagreement with. Same with Hollister, etc.
Tsar of DDO
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,036
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2014 5:58:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/3/2014 5:44:50 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 5/3/2014 5:38:47 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/3/2014 5:35:20 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 5/3/2014 4:17:14 PM, Jonbonbon wrote:
At 5/1/2014 11:51:44 PM, bluesteel wrote:
unattractive woman.

It's eye-opening.

http://www.reddit.com...

Discuss!

Where's the tl;dr?

tl;dr (1) be attractive; (2) don't be unattractive.....

Basically, she is invisible to guys, can't get a retail job, and faces the same discrimination at work (not being taken seriously) that hot women face, but she's ugly too so people won't even pretend to take her seriously cuz she's hot.

Do you make room for the possibility that there might be other reasons she can't get a retail job?

Did you read it? She's clearly very smart; I doubt she didn't have the soft skills necessary.

Anything is "possible." But I take her at her word that being unattractive makes it hard to get retail jobs. Lawsuits against Abercrombie and Hollister have revealed that they tell their managers not to hire unattractive people for front of house.

I've heard of similar cases where restaurants get away with hiring only attractive females for server positions by saying they are hiring "models" or something like that (my buddy was denied a position because of that but we found out he has no case for sexual discrimination against males). Pretty funny how they can fall through loopholes like that, imo.

Also, I dated a manager at A & F once and she told me something very similar when I asked who she looks for when going on hiring expos at universities. I thought it might be illegal, so is it?
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2014 6:22:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/3/2014 5:33:44 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 5/2/2014 9:14:07 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
I understand there is a lesson for us here - to not base how we treat people on their looks - but I cannot help but wonder why this woman hasn't just found somebody in her... price range, if you will... to love her. She acts like everybody in the world thinks she is trash, but what about the unattractive guys in her life? No mention of them at all? Why is she hanging out at bars worrying about what players and bar-tenders think about her? Anybody can come up with a paragraph of complaints about society. I've heard stories like this from women who feel they are TOO attractive, and complain that they scare guys off (at least the good ones, I am guessing) and therefore remain single. I have personally been single over a year and sometimes I feel like writing a thread like this - but then I realize how ignorant it would make me look - and rightly so!

She talks about that. It's because attraction isn't a choice. Telling her: "oh, just settle for an ugly, fat guy" doesn't work if she isn't attracted to those guys. She can try to give them more of a chance, but facts is: women are valued more for their looks than anything. Guys are often valued a bit more for their personalities, which means that guys that would be attracted to *her* are often *both* unattractive *and* have bad personalities.

I don't buy that explanation, it suggests that girls have it worse than guys somehow, which is illogical. A guy who is 6ft tall is 33% more likely to get a response online dating than a guy that's 5'7, and 77% more likely than the guy who is 5'4. In the Bronx, a guy under 5'9 has a 1.2% chance of being responded to online. As a guy who is only 5'8 and has been single over a year now, it's kind of hard for me to accept erroneous generalizations about how more open-minded women are. Girls want Mr. Tall, dark, and handsome (extra points for alpha-personality and money), and guys want a girl who is has an hourglass shape and a cute face (extra points for cleavage and a tight butt). If you want to say people are shallow, fine. But it ain't just guys...
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2014 6:30:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/3/2014 5:54:33 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:

Unless they make enough money to indirectly "buy" an attractive mate, i.e., gold-diggers with beautiful physical features dating ugly rich guys. That's always a way to break the trend I suppose. I've also seen some cases where beautiful girls who grew up/were exposed to abusive situations or who are unaware of their own beauty settle for guys who are sub-par and vice-versa.

I think this proves why you should be internally torn. You're basically advising people who are unattractive to pay for a trophy wife (who are often annoying, dumb, vapid bimbos -- see, e.g., every Real Housewives season) or to find someone who is *soo* emotionally broken that they will take any nice guy. Some people want more in a mate than mere attractiveness, such as emotional health and a modicum of intelligence/depth.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2014 6:34:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/3/2014 5:57:38 PM, YYW wrote:


I agree with everything you said (with one caveat), and I think it's interesting that you used to work retail. I'm sure you have some interesting stories...

The one caveat would be that being attractive *always* helps in any job interview. It's one additional factor (assuming your interview is a heterosexual male).

I don't remember the retail thing being a huge part of her Reddit post. I think it was just thrown in. The more interesting part to me was just the very depressing effect on her of having guys treat her as invisible.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,036
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2014 6:35:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/3/2014 6:30:45 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 5/3/2014 5:54:33 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:

Unless they make enough money to indirectly "buy" an attractive mate, i.e., gold-diggers with beautiful physical features dating ugly rich guys. That's always a way to break the trend I suppose. I've also seen some cases where beautiful girls who grew up/were exposed to abusive situations or who are unaware of their own beauty settle for guys who are sub-par and vice-versa.

I think this proves why you should be internally torn. You're basically advising people who are unattractive to pay for a trophy wife (who are often annoying, dumb, vapid bimbos -- see, e.g., every Real Housewives season) or to find someone who is *soo* emotionally broken that they will take any nice guy. Some people want more in a mate than mere attractiveness, such as emotional health and a modicum of intelligence/depth.

No, I wasn't advising people to do this. I was merely presenting examples of how one could break the cycle of not having a "choice". That's all.

And I think the last two points you raised are just as important if not more so, but still think physical attributes need to be weighed appropriately if wanting an attractive child as the desired outcome. While there are stupid attractive people, I'm sure there are plenty of attractive, intelligent and healthy mates to choose from if you have the ability to do so.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2014 6:40:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/3/2014 5:58:32 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:

Also, I dated a manager at A & F once and she told me something very similar when I asked who she looks for when going on hiring expos at universities. I thought it might be illegal, so is it?

Complicated question. Under federal law, it's not illegal if they treat both genders equally because "attractiveness" is not a protected status, so it's okay to discriminate against ugly people. However, if there is some indication that attractiveness matters more for one gender than the other, that's a problem. The *bigger* problem for Abercrombie and shows like The Bachelor is that mainstream American is kind of racist in what they find attractive, so hiring only people their managers think are attractive tends to exclude a lot of Africa American candidates, which leads to suits about *racial* discrimination in hiring.

There *might* be a claim under federal law based on "sex stereotyping," i.e. if you think women need to dress a certain way (e.g. wear makeup, have long hair) and force them to conform to those stereotypes. So this is also a backdoor through which someone who is not hired for "attractiveness" can sue, but you'd have to prove that the decision not to hire had something to do with these stereotypes, as opposed to bad bone structure or being overweight.

Lastly, state law is more protective than federal law, so might provide additional remedies depending on the state.

It's also noteworthy that juries generally vote against people they hate, so Abercrombie tends to settle these suits even if they aren't based on the strongest legal claims because a jury would f***ing hate the company if this ever went that far. It's not a very "jury friendly" defense to say, "yeah we don't hire fat or ugly people, but that's not technically against the law."
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2014 6:43:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/3/2014 6:22:33 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 5/3/2014 5:33:44 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 5/2/2014 9:14:07 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
I understand there is a lesson for us here - to not base how we treat people on their looks - but I cannot help but wonder why this woman hasn't just found somebody in her... price range, if you will... to love her. She acts like everybody in the world thinks she is trash, but what about the unattractive guys in her life? No mention of them at all? Why is she hanging out at bars worrying about what players and bar-tenders think about her? Anybody can come up with a paragraph of complaints about society. I've heard stories like this from women who feel they are TOO attractive, and complain that they scare guys off (at least the good ones, I am guessing) and therefore remain single. I have personally been single over a year and sometimes I feel like writing a thread like this - but then I realize how ignorant it would make me look - and rightly so!

She talks about that. It's because attraction isn't a choice. Telling her: "oh, just settle for an ugly, fat guy" doesn't work if she isn't attracted to those guys. She can try to give them more of a chance, but facts is: women are valued more for their looks than anything. Guys are often valued a bit more for their personalities, which means that guys that would be attracted to *her* are often *both* unattractive *and* have bad personalities.

I don't buy that explanation, it suggests that girls have it worse than guys somehow, which is illogical. A guy who is 6ft tall is 33% more likely to get a response online dating than a guy that's 5'7, and 77% more likely than the guy who is 5'4. In the Bronx, a guy under 5'9 has a 1.2% chance of being responded to online. As a guy who is only 5'8 and has been single over a year now, it's kind of hard for me to accept erroneous generalizations about how more open-minded women are. Girls want Mr. Tall, dark, and handsome (extra points for alpha-personality and money), and guys want a girl who is has an hourglass shape and a cute face (extra points for cleavage and a tight butt). If you want to say people are shallow, fine. But it ain't just guys...

She never claimed in her post that women aren't shallow too, she was just providing a perspective on how the male attitude affects women who are unattractive.

Also, in general, women are more forgiving on appearance than men are. Women are more likely to rank humor as more important than attractiveness. Men aren't.

Online dating can be tough, but it's somewhat a fake environment because people have *sooo* many choices that they apply filtering mechanisms that they may not find that important simply to narrow the list down.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2014 6:44:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/3/2014 6:35:50 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
While there are stupid attractive people, I'm sure there are plenty of attractive, intelligent and healthy mates to choose from if you have the ability to do so.

I've generally find an inverse ratio between attractiveness and intelligence, particularly in women, because society conditions them that they will be valued for their looks regardless of how hard they try [e.g. in school]. Your whole attitude -- that we should evaluate all mates through the lense of attractiveness -- just adds to that.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,036
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2014 6:51:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/3/2014 6:40:51 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 5/3/2014 5:58:32 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:

Also, I dated a manager at A & F once and she told me something very similar when I asked who she looks for when going on hiring expos at universities. I thought it might be illegal, so is it?

Complicated question. Under federal law, it's not illegal if they treat both genders equally because "attractiveness" is not a protected status, so it's okay to discriminate against ugly people. However, if there is some indication that attractiveness matters more for one gender than the other, that's a problem. The *bigger* problem for Abercrombie and shows like The Bachelor is that mainstream American is kind of racist in what they find attractive, so hiring only people their managers think are attractive tends to exclude a lot of Africa American candidates, which leads to suits about *racial* discrimination in hiring.

There *might* be a claim under federal law based on "sex stereotyping," i.e. if you think women need to dress a certain way (e.g. wear makeup, have long hair) and force them to conform to those stereotypes. So this is also a backdoor through which someone who is not hired for "attractiveness" can sue, but you'd have to prove that the decision not to hire had something to do with these stereotypes, as opposed to bad bone structure or being overweight.

Lastly, state law is more protective than federal law, so might provide additional remedies depending on the state.

It's also noteworthy that juries generally vote against people they hate, so Abercrombie tends to settle these suits even if they aren't based on the strongest legal claims because a jury would f***ing hate the company if this ever went that far. It's not a very "jury friendly" defense to say, "yeah we don't hire fat or ugly people, but that's not technically against the law."

Wow, that's pretty incredible to think that they can get away with such things. As you said though, it's hard to prove the specific reason for a non-hire decision which seems to be the companies best defense. Thank you for the information, I appreciate it. What about restaurants hiring "models" though for positions like servers, and that giving them the ability to hire only attractive women over guys in general? Have you ever seen or heard of a case like that? I'm in Florida so I understand if it falls into state laws and unfamiliar territory but just view you as the best person to ask since the opportunity has presented itself.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2014 6:57:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/3/2014 6:51:40 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
What about restaurants hiring "models" though for positions like servers, and that giving them the ability to hire only attractive women over guys in general?

That's illegal, but hard to prove. It's sex discrimination to hire women over men automatically. However, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the reason given -- "we hire only models" -- is a pretext for hiring only attractive women and not men. But this wouldn't be that hard if the company hires almost no men -- that would look very suspicious -- and would be even *worse* if male models have applied and been turned down.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,036
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2014 7:04:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/3/2014 6:44:52 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 5/3/2014 6:35:50 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
While there are stupid attractive people, I'm sure there are plenty of attractive, intelligent and healthy mates to choose from if you have the ability to do so.

I've generally find an inverse ratio between attractiveness and intelligence, particularly in women, because society conditions them that they will be valued for their looks regardless of how hard they try [e.g. in school]. Your whole attitude -- that we should evaluate all mates through the lense of attractiveness -- just adds to that.

Hasn't physical attraction always had a purpose in mating though? If so, would the cause of the issue then be the over-emphasis placed on it by popular culture at the current moment?

I don't see how I am perpetuating the problem when I am not only looking for an attractive mate but also one who is intelligent and of good health. Perhaps if I said physical attraction was the *only* thing that mattered then sure, but I never said that. Do you really think it's such an issue to proclaim a desire for an attractive mate at the cost of possibly hurting the feelings of ugly people? Is this ultimately a discussion based on trying to give power back to ugly people with attractive people acting as the dominant social group currently?
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,036
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2014 7:08:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/3/2014 6:57:02 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 5/3/2014 6:51:40 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
What about restaurants hiring "models" though for positions like servers, and that giving them the ability to hire only attractive women over guys in general?

That's illegal, but hard to prove. It's sex discrimination to hire women over men automatically. However, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the reason given -- "we hire only models" -- is a pretext for hiring only attractive women and not men. But this wouldn't be that hard if the company hires almost no men -- that would look very suspicious -- and would be even *worse* if male models have applied and been turned down.

Ahh I see! Well then I know exactly how that company got away with it, see they hire guys for the busboy and back-of-the-house positions but that's about it hahaha. Thank you for helping me see the mechanisms behind that one.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,305
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2014 8:39:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/3/2014 6:34:50 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 5/3/2014 5:57:38 PM, YYW wrote:


I agree with everything you said (with one caveat), and I think it's interesting that you used to work retail.

College, summer jobs and yeah... I think most gay guys will work in retail during at least one part of their life. It's just what we do.

I'm sure you have some interesting stories...

Ehh... there were fun parts about it. Most of it, not so much, though. I was very good at it, though. The only retail job I've ever had that I could say I enjoyed was one where there were two other really hot guys I worked with. Both were straight, but the eye candy made the work less unbearable.

The one caveat would be that being attractive *always* helps in any job interview.

All else being equal, aesthetically beautiful people are more likely to get hired than people who are not. That's not a universal, though, for reasons I'm going to talk about in response to your next sentence.

It's one additional factor (assuming your interview is a heterosexual male).

Ok, next sentence. Statistically, the probability of a woman being interviewed by a heterosexual guy for a retail job is lacking -unless the job is selling cell phones, working at Home Depot, Costco, an auto repair store or somewhere like that.

In a department store, like Neimans or Saks, or a brand store like J. Crew or Banana Republic, if a guy works there it's more probable that he's gay than he's not. And, gay guys are just as likely as straight guys to favor beautiful women for hires because it serves the stores best interest. Straight women, however, generally outnumber gay men in non-macho (where "macho" would describe environments like the home repair stores or discount warehouses, etc.) environments. Straight women may favor other beautiful women if they're not threatened by them, or if they're threatened by them then they're more likely to hire other women who are less attractive than they perceive themselves to be. Even still, if anyone in the retail environment is hiring someone for an associate (floor) job, the extrovert of any level of aesthetic appeal is going to beat out the attractive introvert every time. That's just the nature of the environment. Personality matters more, in almost every case.

I don't remember the retail thing being a huge part of her Reddit post. I think it was just thrown in. The more interesting part to me was just the very depressing effect on her of having guys treat her as invisible.

Sure. And I can't really say that I empathize with her state of being, because I can't. I know what it feels like to be treated like I'm invisible, but not for reasons like hers. I think that there are probably lots of other reasons that she's not going to get hired in a job that requires her to be extroverted, because she doesn't seem like an extrovert. She could change that, but it would be hard and she'd probably resent doing it. Even still, there's value in hearing the way that another person sees the world. There was an article in today's New York Times about kids in an elite NY private school meeting kids from one of the poorest neighborhoods in the United States. Both are separated by six miles. It had a pretty big impact on me, at least, and the effect is similar to the Reddit post.
Tsar of DDO
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2014 9:04:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/3/2014 8:39:25 PM, YYW wrote:
........

Hmmm, interesting. I guess I'd always heard that there were a lot of gay men in fashion, but I didn't realize that was true even for chain department stores. I don't have the best gaydar, but I thought that most of the sales staff I encountered at Nordstrom's was straight. At the higher end stores though [like Neimann's], I noticed more of the male staff are gay. But I never thought Nordstrom's had high standards for hiring; like you said, you should hire extroverts, but Nordstrom staff are pretty hands off. They are only a small stuff above the staff in the Target clothing section. They'll help you try stuff on and just stare at you -- saying nothing, waiting for you to do something. It's kind of awkward.

But yeah, I can see being extroverted being a way more important feature than being attractive. I mean, the way guys buy sh*t they don't really want at those stores isn't because there's a hot saleperson just standing there, but often because she walks up and is flirtatious and says, "oooh, that looks really good on you." Those skills matter.

I guess I kind of thought though that the stores had training for how to upsell; selling is so scripted these days in a lot of places, I'm surprised retail doesn't rely more on that. Introverted people can do really well if you just tell them to follow a script. Obviously not every interaction goes according to a script, which is why in the service economy you're often better with an extrovert.

I don't even know. Extrovert/introvert are weird labels. They seem to be used as a proxy for social skills, oryus used to like to say that she was an extrovert shut-in or something along those lines. Extrovert is supposed to be someone who craves interaction with others, whereas introverts like alone time. But not all introverts are social retards. Some can turn it *on* when they need to, it's just more tiring for them to do so and they would prefer to be at home than to be "on" at a party.

There was an article in today's New York Times about kids in an elite NY private school meeting kids from one of the poorest neighborhoods in the United States. Both are separated by six miles. It had a pretty big impact on me, at least, and the effect is similar to the Reddit post.

Oh, sounds cool. What's the link?
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
YYW
Posts: 36,305
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2014 9:20:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/3/2014 9:04:18 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 5/3/2014 8:39:25 PM, YYW wrote:
........

Hmmm, interesting. I guess I'd always heard that there were a lot of gay men in fashion, but I didn't realize that was true even for chain department stores. I don't have the best gaydar, but I thought that most of the sales staff I encountered at Nordstrom's was straight. At the higher end stores though [like Neimann's], I noticed more of the male staff are gay. But I never thought Nordstrom's had high standards for hiring; like you said, you should hire extroverts, but Nordstrom staff are pretty hands off.

I don't think Nordstrom pays commission. But at, like, a Bally shoe store they absolutely do.

They are only a small stuff above the staff in the Target clothing section. They'll help you try stuff on and just stare at you -- saying nothing, waiting for you to do something. It's kind of awkward.

Hmmm... I don't think I've ever bought clothes at Target, but it's pretty easy to tell when floor staff make commission. Although, really, retail sucks -and even the most extroverted people have a hard time being perky all the time.

But yeah, I can see being extroverted being a way more important feature than being attractive. I mean, the way guys buy sh*t they don't really want at those stores isn't because there's a hot saleperson just standing there, but often because she walks up and is flirtatious and says, "oooh, that looks really good on you." Those skills matter.

I was trained in it, but when employees don't make commission, it doesn't happen on the floor. And in the places that pay commission, unless it's a suit store, upselling is hard to do.

I guess I kind of thought though that the stores had training for how to upsell; selling is so scripted these days in a lot of places, I'm surprised retail doesn't rely more on that. Introverted people can do really well if you just tell them to follow a script. Obviously not every interaction goes according to a script, which is why in the service economy you're often better with an extrovert.

I don't even know. Extrovert/introvert are weird labels. They seem to be used as a proxy for social skills, oryus used to like to say that she was an extrovert shut-in or something along those lines. Extrovert is supposed to be someone who craves interaction with others, whereas introverts like alone time. But not all introverts are social retards. Some can turn it *on* when they need to, it's just more tiring for them to do so and they would prefer to be at home than to be "on" at a party.

They are weird labels and work better as archetypal models against which to measure behavior than labels to affix onto someone's personality because we're all sort of on a scale between extroversion and introversion.

There was an article in today's New York Times about kids in an elite NY private school meeting kids from one of the poorest neighborhoods in the United States. Both are separated by six miles. It had a pretty big impact on me, at least, and the effect is similar to the Reddit post.

Oh, sounds cool. What's the link?

http://www.nytimes.com...

It's pretty powerful. Just a warning...
Tsar of DDO
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2014 9:40:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/3/2014 9:20:09 PM, YYW wrote:


One kid ran crying off campus. It made them so disheartened about their own circumstances." :/

I wish I had something like that as a kid. It's gotta be pretty eye opening to say your most difficult experience and then hear someone else who has it so much harder, in a way that you couldn't even fathom. And then have to tell their story and do it justice for them...
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
YYW
Posts: 36,305
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2014 9:43:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/3/2014 9:40:58 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 5/3/2014 9:20:09 PM, YYW wrote:


One kid ran crying off campus. It made them so disheartened about their own circumstances." :/

Yeah. That line hit me especially hard.

I wish I had something like that as a kid. It's gotta be pretty eye opening to say your most difficult experience and then hear someone else who has it so much harder, in a way that you couldn't even fathom. And then have to tell their story and do it justice for them...

Same.
Tsar of DDO