-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Lookism is an abundant prejudice that is ignored by some.
- Thread starter flippymittens
- Start date
- Status
SteveWinwood
Member
Didn't you say racism wasn't as big of a deal as this?
Also just because -ism is a suffix and look is a word, doesn't mean lookism is a word.
Also just because -ism is a suffix and look is a word, doesn't mean lookism is a word.
It's great progress, and progress which I support, but as far as changing our entire culture I think it's kind of a pebble in the ocean. I mean we have millions upon millions of ads being made probably every day, and every one of those companies wants to be better than some other competing company in every way possible, and that includes the models they use.
You can change some companies, like this article says, but a lot of times that's a marketing decision. They're doing it because it gets them noticed, because it's a message their buyers want. But until that becomes a message all buyers want, then things won't change as much. I kind of liken it to wages in a capitalist society. Wages will go down for the most part, as companies try and squeeze all they can out of a worker. If there were no minimum wage there would be many companies no paying that amount. That's just how it is. There would be a few, however, that do pay a good amount, but a lot of times those would be the kind of targeted "hippie" type stores and brands that emphasize that sort of thing in order to sell their product or message.
Basically until we have some sort of law saying you can't photoshop these sorts of things (and how such a law would even work is beyond me) I'm just not sure how much progress we can realistically make in a capitalist society.
Koopakiller
Banned
I don't know how ugly you are, OP, but unless you have elephantitis or extreme acne or some other disorder that makes you repugnant or hard to look in the eye, you're probably over-blowing it. Just be confident in your appearance, as confidence is the ultimate sexiness, and it can easily overpower most physical imperfections. Watch The Full Monty for inspiration.
It is annoying how society can be so superficial at times, but I find that superficial people aren't worth being around
It is annoying how society can be so superficial at times, but I find that superficial people aren't worth being around
Devolution
Member
Eh you can pressure a lot of things into change if enough people voice their issues. Dove is another one I think is pretty excellent:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hibyAJOSW8U
teruterubozu
Member
Whoa. Sorry man, didn't mean to offend. I just wanted to say that "ideal body image" is ingrained throughout history.
This sort of thing is how your sort of solution starts though. Without a groundswell of support for ending this sort of practice it will never end. Washington will never move on it if they don't have to, that's just how it is. Until everyone gets together and says enough is enough nothing will change.
You're still bringing up very pointed examples that lend themselves very well to marketing campaigns in and of themselves, and that's what I'm saying.
shadowsdarknes
Member
The problem is there are a group of people who want to be friends with attractive people or envy their comeliness because they want those attractive physical traits.
I don't believe the issue of physical beauty and human attraction will ever change.
Devolution
Member
How else would you manage to change it? You have to get businesses to see the profit in it or the positive exposure, same with green solutions, and all kinds of others things.
What does this have to do with anything? I'm talking about impossible or slim minority standards.
speculawyer
Member
Good point.
SouthernDragon
Member
I was so looking forward to this thread.
CoffeeJanitor
Member
I don't know what you can really do about this "issue." I mean, I don't know if it even is one.
All I can say is that being short sucks.
All I can say is that being short sucks.
I did say that these were great places to start, and I support those efforts. I'm not really even saying throw your hands up in the air and give up, either. I'm just saying I personally don't see an ultimate solution to the problem while living in a capitalistic society like we do. I'm coming from someone who creates advertisements and lives marketing (that's what I went to school for and that's my career path). The incentive in 99.9% of these cases is to make an ad that's the best it possibly can be an that looks the best it possibly can be, unrealistic or not. That's why other products and things are photoshopped to hell. We spend hours and hours dolling up and photoshopping a sandwich, too!
Karsticles
Member
You'll have to make your question a little more specific if you want an answer. There are a lot of ways for celebration to take place; it's almost inevitable that some differences will exist. If you are asking me whether people should be wealthy purely because they are beautiful, I do not have a problem with that.
This is utter crap. This is one of those myths that gets passed around that even with an ounce of examination is completely ridiculous. This one "I'm so attractive people limit me" and "It's so harder than you think being so rich" just completely ridiculous in our society. Being attractive period gains access or gives advantages that simply aren't available to unattractive folks. The advantages you get as an attractive person become a baked in part of the world view, they simply assume this is the way the world works. 30 Rock had an amazing episode ("The Bubble") that illustrated this effect extremely well.
Any very attractive person who is being "pidgeonholed" is because they quite simply don't have the necessary tools to do what they think they want to do. Because they are attractive, they get access but they don't have the actual tools to do what they want to do so it becomes frustrating (which they tend to not be used to). Whether it be attitude, aptitude, or education, just being attractive will get them access to anything they desire but it's not always enough to close the deal. Girls/Guys don't hate you because you are hot, they hate you because you are an arrogant, and probably terrible person. Guys/girls don't get passed over for promotion because they are hot, they get passed over because their education/skills aren't nearly up to the level required for the job. Even if it's close though, they get access to interviews and such that less attractive folks wouldn't.
That being said, so what? Life isn't fair. Deal with it.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
The progressive approach would be to start with banning advertising fullstop to children, starting with young children and ramping up through at least pre-teens. It can be gradual, since this change obviously has to be a generational thing anyway. Another progressive approach might be to mandate disclaimers on any advertising that has been altered or airbrushed.
Not that that would fix everything altogether. I'd also couple it with a conservative approach--hold parents to account for responsibly educating children, instill a strong sense of humility, empathy, and kindness through school education, and work with churches and secular organizations--you do this to immunize children against the frankly repulsive value-set of rampant and debased consumerism that the advertisers are trying to sell and that feeds the beauty culture. Half these kids are being raised by absentee parents (either due to active neglect--jail of one or more parent in some cases--or by just the passive neglect of two-earner families being too burned out after working or looking for work to be able to provide a more active role in their child's lives). So this is the tip of the much bigger iceberg that needs to be addressed.
I'm starting to sound like Hillary Clinton.
Advertisers are playing the game correctly from their standpoint. They sell aggressively. They earn their money. You might convince some to see the value in choosing a more socially responsible way of advertising, but it's highly unlikely that reform is going to occur on its own across the system.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
I'm not saying it's more difficult to be attractive than to be ugly, I'm saying that being attractive also comes with baggage.
Whether the baggage comes from someone being seen first and foremost as attractive and thus not appreciated for their skills, or whether it comes from being streamed into a position where they need to emphasize their looks so they never develop the skills the begin with, it's the same end result.
Also, it's astounding that you'd cite "The Bubble" as evidence for the fact that it's not hard to be attractive. The takeaway of the episode was that Jon Hamm was so attractive that he was unable to develop any real skills--in essence, he was restricted from being a more substantial person because he floated through on his looks. It was the aesthetic equivalent of a smart kid who coasts through school and fucks up in college or real life because they didn't develop a work ethic. Why do you think Liz left him? It's because the gravy train was illusory, a life with him would have been miserable because he was a profoundly handicapped individual.
In effect, you've made the exact opposite case then you were trying to make.
Koopakiller
Banned
I agree with the arrogant thing. I've seen girls get so dolled up it's just absurd. And they go with a totally different look every fucking day... it's like they can't just live with being attractive, they have to put themselves on stage and shove their attractiveness in everyone's face.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
I'm a little unclear as to what point you are trying to make. Are you saying that people don't judge people based on looks? Or that they do but it's not as important as the OP makes it seem? Or is it that attractive people still have problems like the rest?
Hm, I remember a short story that goes like this. Roald Dahl?
Pretty much everything Stump is saying is spot on. Given the way the OP speaks on this forum, I'd imagine any issues he thinks he's having is more than perceived lookism, but also his personality, confidence, and simply the way he handles himself.
There are plenty of unnattractive people that are treated great. There are many attractive people that skate by on their looks. There are many attractive people that aren't given a chance or taken seriously because of their looks. There are many unnattractive people that cannot rise passed their perceived disadvantages. While this can be something to complain about: the superficial nature of the world. How people evaluate people based on stereotypes. Sexism and racism are on a whole other level of injustice
There are plenty of unnattractive people that are treated great. There are many attractive people that skate by on their looks. There are many attractive people that aren't given a chance or taken seriously because of their looks. There are many unnattractive people that cannot rise passed their perceived disadvantages. While this can be something to complain about: the superficial nature of the world. How people evaluate people based on stereotypes. Sexism and racism are on a whole other level of injustice
shadyspace
Banned
Everything should be equal and no one should have to compete and we know better than nature.
Ah, thanks, thats it.
storafötter
Member
I think the OP brought up something important. Often this is ridiculed when people think about these things seriously and we just have to "accept" the way nature intended for us. I have realized over the years how much worse I could have it if my looks were unappealing to people. I may been bullied as a child but not for the appearance I was born with. Due to peoples obsession will appearance I have taught myself to try to look at beauty in a more wider and broader definition than just by first impression.
Then again as Stump said there are plenty of other factors that come in and not just appearance. Nevertheless this could be a fascinating topic.
Then again as Stump said there are plenty of other factors that come in and not just appearance. Nevertheless this could be a fascinating topic.
Amory
Member
OP the world isn't ever going to be 100% even-steven for everyone. Some people are born attractive, some aren't. You've still got to play the hand you're dealt. Going through life feeling victimized and sorry for yourself will likely have an even worse effect than "lookism" ever could.
Devolution
Member
How would you target just children? How would you take advertising out of magazines meant for young girls without killing the magazines themselves? In terms of images it's not just ads, it's the models themselves or even hollywood. How are you going to censor movies? Will you also ban makeup?
How would you hold parents accountable when there are so many methods of these images reaching children? You could only hold them accountable up to a point. Girls have to deal with other girls at school. Or whatever those girls bring to school. Are magazines going to be the new contraband?
I realize that advertisers are just running a game either way but I see your suggestions as far too idealistic all things considered.
Advertisements target specifically children all of the time (and it's fairly obvious when it happens.) If advertisers have specific ways of advertising to children (which they do), then you should be able to figure it out. See: tobacco companies.
As far as how magazines (and other media) aimed at children surviving without advertisements, that's the magazine's problem. Why should we care about the commercial interests of companies that play an active role in harming society?
Devolution
Member
I know some ads target children specifically. I'm saying that children just don't watch Nickelodeon. Fashion mags are both for girls and older women. The magazines aren't just playing an active role in harming society. Come on. A bunch of them would be harmless fashion magazines and popstar fluff if not for the ads contained inside and the fashion shoots. Either way you're not really targeting much if you solely go only after magazines. There's a couple whole industries built on looks that's hard for most girls/women to obtain: fashion, makeup, modelling, hollywood. How would you actively censor these things? From my point of view, you don't censor so much as force integration of all kinds of people.
Stump may have been talking about magazines specifically (I did not get that, I thought he was talking about all advertisement.)
My post, however, is talking about ALL advertisements targeting at children.
I do say that they're playing an active role by running the ads themselves.
And you're right, it doesn't take away all of the other influences. But it does lessen the total, so it's not like it should be ignored.
EDIT: I wouldn't just say 'some', though. I would say 'a lot'. One of the best way to get a parent's money is to get to it through the children. Although, sometimes that takes the form playing an ad focusing on parents making their kids proud of them, as well.
VanillaCakeIsBurning
Member
I meant more in terms of the physical attractiveness thing. Should a person born with attractive features be celebrated regardless of the amount of effort required to attain that state, which in this case would be zero?
flippymittens
Banned
This.
Ummmm when you are discriminated against you are victimized. You are underplaying discrimination by belittling those discussing it saying they should not feel victimized and to get over/ignore the treatment.
Thank you for not ridiculing the notion that we should condemn discrimination based on looks.storafötter;41648023 said:
spacerumsfield
Banned
Moping about on neogaf won't make your situation any better; it is time to adapt to your circumstances. I suggest taking diet and exercise rather seriously (if you don't already); in particular, a bodybuilding regime will in time produce an admirable body that a majority of women find attractive. Then, to the extent that physicality matters to such women, they may be more willing to overlook the busted face. Good luck!
flippymittens
Banned
Creating one topic on neogaf about lookism and speaking out against lookism when seen is moping?
This is not just my situation and you are being very dismissive of an abundant form of discrimination.
I'd agree with this. Saying this as a pretty average looking person, it's always going to be more practicable to reshape social mores and structures than to undo natural subconscious biases.
It's the Bubble.
I-I want to go to there...
Other forms of discrimination tend to have some humans rights abuses associated with them. Which is what I mostly care about and why they are a bigger deal.
The idea of a completely equal and fair humanity is also a problematic one because to me it seems kind of incompatible to human nature if we go all the way. Some aspects are part of human nature, my point being I am favor of stopping discrimination at a certain point and mostly stopping certain behaviors but not making human societies completely fair and equal in all and going all the way.
I don't think that is practical either.
I mean you say this:
Isn't that admitting that this is how men are?
We should not be dicks to ugly women but I don't see an issue with preferring them, and vice versa.
Completely eliminating whatever ism is simply impossible.
I do think that it is not a bad idea to be against certain behaviors that might be associated with looks. But be mindful of setting realistic and good goals. Stopping certain bad behaviors is something that I find more acceptable than being against certain preferences and privileges. For example if people want to pay good looking people attention and as a result ugly people don't have as much attention I don't mind it but if ugly people are getting abuse then that is a behavior we should target. However neither of those are fair but the later is a problem of discrimination and abuse and lack of respect which makes it closer to my standards of things that need some intervention, and more related to the humans right thing I mentioned at the start of my post. So the approach to those issues is not one where fairness and equality is the ultimate value but respect of human beings and their rights is. (which also means certain fairness and equality as well as with no fairness and equality at all you lack that too)
Also I have seen some of your posts and you tend to make a lot of issues to be about you, try to be more self confident because there is also another ism of people liking people who have some self confidence and are not constantly doubting themselves.
The idea of a completely equal and fair humanity is also a problematic one because to me it seems kind of incompatible to human nature if we go all the way. Some aspects are part of human nature, my point being I am favor of stopping discrimination at a certain point and mostly stopping certain behaviors but not making human societies completely fair and equal in all and going all the way.
I don't think that is practical either.
I mean you say this:
Isn't that admitting that this is how men are?
We should not be dicks to ugly women but I don't see an issue with preferring them, and vice versa.
Completely eliminating whatever ism is simply impossible.
I do think that it is not a bad idea to be against certain behaviors that might be associated with looks. But be mindful of setting realistic and good goals. Stopping certain bad behaviors is something that I find more acceptable than being against certain preferences and privileges. For example if people want to pay good looking people attention and as a result ugly people don't have as much attention I don't mind it but if ugly people are getting abuse then that is a behavior we should target. However neither of those are fair but the later is a problem of discrimination and abuse and lack of respect which makes it closer to my standards of things that need some intervention, and more related to the humans right thing I mentioned at the start of my post. So the approach to those issues is not one where fairness and equality is the ultimate value but respect of human beings and their rights is. (which also means certain fairness and equality as well as with no fairness and equality at all you lack that too)
Also I have seen some of your posts and you tend to make a lot of issues to be about you, try to be more self confident because there is also another ism of people liking people who have some self confidence and are not constantly doubting themselves.
Weirdly, (male) stewards on planes give me amazing service. Not trying to be prejudicial here, but all that did were like Jack from Will & Grace. I'm straight, so I've always been a bit bewildered, since there's an under-representation of stewardesses doing the same. The best time, though, was once I slept through the food serving on a flight, and I asked when I woke up, and the steward brought me double.
Maybe I'm just like Chandler. Straight, but people think I'm gay. Once a girl asked if I was gay, since I 'spoke English so proper' (I'm Norwegian) - apparently, you have to be gay to pronounce full words, and not do that californian thing where it sounds like there's something stuffed in your mouth "lihe, oh mah gah"
Maybe I'm just like Chandler. Straight, but people think I'm gay. Once a girl asked if I was gay, since I 'spoke English so proper' (I'm Norwegian) - apparently, you have to be gay to pronounce full words, and not do that californian thing where it sounds like there's something stuffed in your mouth "lihe, oh mah gah"
Karsticles
Member
It never takes no effort to maintain attractiveness. Good eating, fitness, etc. Even if it did, absolutely it should be celebrated. Good genes is a good thing.
Nonsense. Maybe if you look like a Clueless character. You can't tell me that a nice looking lady in a business suit is automatically considered "dumb".
That's in large part due to straight sexism. If you're good looking and charismatic people aren't going to actively disregard your opinion in favour of what the next unattractive person tells them.
T
Transhuman
Unconfirmed Member
What is this "non-warped" view of beauty? No-one gets judged by their outward appearance, ever? Or is there a equilibrium of discrimination based on appearance that society should aspire to? Evolution is cruel, and so is sexual selection and koinophilia.
Probably an actress/ business suit-model.
You don't think that with similarly decorated resumes the employer would be within reason to presume that an overweight person might have less energy, less self-control, less social-awareness and therefore be a better candidate?
That's because stereotypical "gamers" feel threatened when obviously look-but-don't-touch objects of attraction intrude on their perceived "safe space." Totally different topic, but a problematic one nonetheless.
- Status