Instamonkey: Aristophanes, call your office

Deborah L. Rhode, a Stanford University law professor and author of "The Beauty Bias: The Injustice of Appearance in Life and Law," reminds us what's old -- really, really old -- is new again:

Appearance-related bias... exacerbates disadvantages based on gender, race, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation and class. Prevailing beauty standards penalize people who lack the time and money to invest in their appearance. And weight discrimination, in particular, imposes special costs on people who live in communities with shortages of healthy food options and exercise facilities.

So why not simply ban discrimination based on appearance?

Yes, why not? A beautiful idea. What could possibly go wrong?

(Via John Miller at The Corner.)

Trackback URL for this post:

http://blog.infinitemonkeysblog.com/?q=trackback/7281

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Harrison Bergeron,

call your office. But make sure your ankle weights are in place please.

The Harrison Bergeron fallacy

Forgive me for observing that one doesn't have to throw a stone too far to come up with a "Harrison Bergeron" allusion from somebody when somebody else points out an example of inequality. It's a smartypants -- sorry, Wry -- way, I think, of saying "tough shit" without, often, doing the hard work of whether the particular inequality in question is really just "the way things are" or if they deserve to be corrected. Even my more conservative friends would agree, I think, that there are some forms of inequality that should be addressed -- if not governmentally, then culturally.

It might be the case that the Harrison Bergeron applies here. I just think it's usually too easy.

Re: HBF

I was in a band back in college called "The Harrison Bergeron Fallacy."

Rock Band: HBF

did they wear helmets?

Harrson Bergeron Phallacy

I think the problem is, Joel, that the guy going straight to HB is me. It's part of my playbook. I loved the short story. Well -- the point behind it anyways. So -- I'll cop to the "maybe too easy to go there" charges. It's all me.

As to "if not governmentally..." etc., as an alleged conservative (which, as Al Capp avers, basically means that if you see a grubby street in a town you think to yourself, "clean up your damned street!") I will say that I believe in people saying whatever they want to say about social justice, compassion, et. al. Then I watch what happens if some community need surfaces within their sphere of influence. Do they give sammiches out at the local shelter? Hire people indiscriminately? Have a wide circle of friends? Throw the occasional bum an occasional fiver? Sponsor li'l kids in faraway countries?

That usually tells me more than any rhetoric about whether the govmint should be more or less charitable or equitable.

Re: Harrison Bergeron Phallacy

I'm imagining what Vonnegut's short story world would have done to average out any man with an above-average phallus and the pictures aren't pretty. Thanks so much for that.

I think you touch on a good point, which is that true communities do better with charity and equity than any office of faceless bureaucrats. However, there are people -- too many people -- who don't have communities. And there are many communities which are, for whatever reason, not fully functioning.

That's what government is for. Because helping those people and communities is better for all of us than not helping.

I mean, Al Capp is a perfect foil here. He thinks "Clean up your damned street!" and I guess that's my initial reaction, too. But there are plenty of reasons why someone might not be able to clean up their damned street -- it's not always laziness that leads to a dirty street.

Having a government that helps keep the streets clean isn't necessarily going to lead to our living in "The Trees".

Al Capp, Conservative

Thanks, cry, for appreciating the Capp reference. As he tells the story, he was always known as something of an arch-"liberal" until the 60's. That's when the definition of "liberal" changed out from underneath him, I guess:

"I had grown up in the days when anybody who ate regularly (the upper class) felt no responsibility for the poor souls who didn't, and helped them only out of human kindness. As I grew into the upper class, I became a liberal. We demanded that the unfortunate be given welfare, that their rent be paid, that they be given food benefits. We fought for all that, and slowly, painfully, we won. It was marvelous being a liberal in those days, because you were on the side of humanity.

"What began to bother me, privately, was that, as things grew better, the empire of the needy seemed to grow larger. Somehow they became entitled to government gifts other people couldn't get, such as people who worked. Yet I remained a loyal liberal. I lived in Cambridge, Massachusetts, the home of liberalism. I spoke at liberal banquets in New York, Los Angeles, Washington. One day a lady photographer came to my studio and showed me a collection of Boston photographs. A publisher would publish them if only I would rattle off the captions. She had brought a tape recorder. Well, one doesn't turn down a lady liberal. The pictures were funny. My captions tried to be. And then we came to the last one. This one, she said, will break your heart. She showed me a picture of a city street. It was mid-afternoon, the sun was shining. Garbage cans were tipped on the sidewalk. Bottles lined the gutters. On a porch sprawled a half dozen teenagers, drinking and smoking. The caption, I said, should be 'Get up off your asses and clean up your street!' The lady stormed out. I guess that was when I began leaving what liberalism had become. "

I absolutely love Li'l Abner (and not just for the obviously healthy womenfolk) , second perhaps only to Krazy Kat.