Gob wrote:
"...
Could/should retail outfits be able to advertise for staff which suit their merchandise?
Should "healthy food" outlets be able to advertise for healthy looking people, should sports shops be able to adverrtise for fit / active people, should clothers outfitters be able to advertise for tall slim people?
... "
They always have done so. Businesses that sell sports clothes and equipment mention it in the job ads that they want people who are athletic and will be good advertising for the equipment. You see a lot of tubby people in the Patagonia, O'Neill ads?
People who sell vegan or vegetarian foods advertise for employees with an interest in diet and nutrition.
And of course Mickey Ds hires pimply, blobby, obese kid to advertise their foods ...
I'm going to surprise no one and make a politically incorrect and sexist point.
I rue the day when it became passe to select females (in a number of contexts) for their relative pulchritude.
I remember when airline passengers (male ones, I guess) could look forward to being served by STEWARDESSES who were uniformly tall, generally attractive, well-groomed, and pleasant. To be dating a stewardess was a Big Deal, and in fact to BE a stewardess was a big deal, with status at least equal to that of a nurse or a teacher.
Not that I have anything against the grandmothers and gay guys who now (don't) serve me coffee and snacks.
And what about cheerleaders? I still remember the time in Pittsburgh when - to be quite frank - a fat girl was passed over for cheerleader in a local suburban school district, and the parents sued the school district for some sort of misfeasance. The facts apparently were that she was as good as anyone else at doing the cheers, and she showed the appropriate amount of enthusiasm, but was passed over because the seismographs at CMU were reacting to her tumbles. The final result was that the girl was put on the cheerleading squad and the school fired the cheerleading "coach," and apologized.
Parenthetically, I have to say that I am totally mystified by the existence of cheerleaders generally. The people in the stands have come to watch a basketball game, and they more than likely are rooting for one team or the other. What do cheerleaders add to the mix, if not Eye Candy?
In any event, it appears that every school district in Western Pennsylvania took the lesson of that case to heart; anyone who can do the cheers and make the appropriate noises gets an equal opportunity to make the cheerleading squad (which has expanded in number over the years to be the equivalent of a small expeditionary force). Moreover, it appears that the social networks in the schools were instantly revised to the effect that female student populations no longer seek out positions on the cheerleading squads as a means of social advancement. Judging by the cheerleading squads I've seen in recent years - and the cheers they do, it has become the female equivalent of a Hip-Hop Wrestling Team. Enough said.
In any event, it appears that every school district in Western Pennsylvania took the lesson of that case to heart; anyone who can do the cheers and make the appropriate noises gets an equal opportunity to make the cheerleading squad
I fail to see why tht is bad; shouldn't we judge on merit, not appearance?
Moreover, it appears that the social networks in the schools were instantly revised to the effect that female student populations no longer seek out positions on the cheerleading squads as a means of social advancement.
And this is bad because? Are you really saying schools should be putting taxpayers' money into a vehicle for the social advancement of some group of young women?
What's next, let's ban guys with acne from playing football.
First and foremost, it is nowhere near as genetic (i.e., having "good bone structure") as most people suppose. If a person is physically fit, dresses and grooms him or herself appropriately, wears suitable clothes, and adopts a hair style and color that are well-suited to their facial shape, they can usually look great, regardless of what God gave them. I dare say, the young woman who is currently the darling of the Country Music set, Taylor Swift, is something of a bow-wow, except for the fact that she has an army of technicians working diligently to make her look sexy and beautiful. Take away the army and she would be one of those girls who gets no Valentine's Day cards.
Second, it is human nature to favor those who look the best. Look at the ads for local colleges and universities. They make it a point to include a lot of different genders and ethnic groups, but everyone in the ads is attactive. It's only natural.
And as I said, what is the point of having cheerleaders if not for their value as Eye Candy? Any dogs among the Laker girls or the Cowboy cheerleaders?
I have seen some truly ugly strippers in a few low life dives as well as some really beautiful ones in some higher class places. It has also occurred to me that Hooters are usually staffed by women with larger breasts and smaller waists.
Miles, are you sure that you have large enough samples to reach scientifically valid conclusions? Don't you think it might be better to gather more data first?
And as I said, what is the point of having cheerleaders if not for their value as Eye Candy?
so now you're saying we should spend taxpayer money on recruiting and promoting eye candy? I have not problem with promoting the athleticism, or even the coordination that comes from the cheer and dance routines, but to give some girls who were either born attractive (and most were, unless high school has grossly changed) a platform to promote themselves? I can't see it.
dgs49 wrote: a fat girl was passed over for cheerleader in a local suburban school district, and the parents sued the school district for some sort of misfeasance. The facts apparently were that she was as good as anyone else at doing the cheers, and she showed the appropriate amount of enthusiasm, but was passed over because the seismographs at CMU were reacting to her tumbles. .
Oh that had me reverting to my natural unreconstructed state. Tea enema for the nose of the morning, thanks Dave.
Edited to add. Local rugby teams OVERTLY choose their cheerleading squads for sex appeal. If you've ever been to a rugby match, you'd realise that the only thing which will prevent the testosteroned up rival fans from using the interval as a time to lamp seven shades of shit out of each other, is the sight of groups of semi nude nubiles poncing about.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
I still have to say the strangest accent I ever heard was while booking a hotel room for the Power Tour in 2009: about equal parts Australia & Kentucky.
(And the guy screwed me on the room cost, but anyway...)
Edit: three misspellings in 3 lines, that's bad even for me.
Local rugby teams OVERTLY choose their cheerleading squads for sex appeal. If you've ever been to a rugby match, you'd realise that the only thing which will prevent the testosteroned up rival fans from using the interval as a time to lamp seven shades of shit out of each other, is the sight of groups of semi nude nubiles poncing about.
As do most professional and amateur teams that have the same here; indeed, the only time the courts get involved is when taxpayer money is spent to find the activity--as in publicly funded schools.
dgs49 wrote:everyone in the ads is attactive. It's only natural.
I don't know about natural, as attractiveness is so subjective. Unfortuantely, many folks are brain-washed into believing that what's pushed on us by advertisers is some kind of human ideal. When in fact, it's all 'unattainable perfection' to make us think we're ugly, and the only thing that will save is buying their products.
Granted, (I couldn't remember what the fashion industry Mecca was called) it is a goal that is very high and hard to obtain, and when people start achieving it; then the ideal is changed. That's as hard to reach as 'perfection'.
I have seen some truly ugly strippers in a few low life dives as well as some really beautiful ones in some higher class places. It has also occurred to me that Hooters are usually staffed by women with larger breasts and smaller waists.
Miles, are you sure that you have large enough samples to reach scientifically valid conclusions? Don't you think it might be better to gather more data first?
You may be right LJ, perhaps I will have to go back to my old haunts and check out the current stock of data.
I expect to go straight to hell...........at least I won't have to spend time making new friends.
dgs49 wrote:I'm going to surprise no one and make a politically incorrect and sexist point.
I rue the day when it became passe to select females (in a number of contexts) for their relative pulchritude.
I remember when airline passengers (male ones, I guess) could look forward to being served by STEWARDESSES who were uniformly tall, generally attractive, well-groomed, and pleasant. To be dating a stewardess was a Big Deal, and in fact to BE a stewardess was a big deal, with status at least equal to that of a nurse or a teacher.
... "
In purely practical terms, in cases where the job is simple enough that a large number of people can do it with minimal training you can impose arbitrary standards of appearance and still fulfill the functions required reasonably well. In cases where highly specialised skills, rare talents &c limit the people who are suitable to a small-ish fraction of the population imposing arbitrary standards can be a recipe for failure.
I wonder if he would be willing to extrapolate those thoughts and apply them to the phenomenon that is occasionally called, "Affirmative Action"? And consider the implications of "Affirmative Action" in medical schools.
