Theology on Tap Kelly's Brickhouse Pub

2010 Volume 9 794 W. Minneoloa Ave. - Clermont

September 2, 2010 Gathering at 5:30, Ordering at 6:00

Welcome to Theology on Tap!

We are glad you are here and hope you have a fun and engaging time tonight.
There is no appointed discussion leader for Theology on Tap, so anyone
(including you!) can begin the discussion with the people around you.

Our Beauty Bias is Unfair

But should it also be illegal?

by Dahlia Lithwick - June 04, 2010

Meet Deborah Rhode, a Stanford law professor who proposes a legal regime in which
discrimination on the basis of looks is as serious as discrimination based on gender or race. In a
provocative new book, The Beauty Bias, Rhode lays out the case for an America in which
appearance discrimination is no longer allowed.

That means Hooters can’t fire its servers for being too heavy, as allegedly happened last month to
a waitress in Michigan who says she received nothing but excellent reviews but weighed 132
pounds. And the top management at Abercrombie & Fitch couldn’t hold weekly meetings, as they
allegedly did, at which photos of its sales associates were reviewed and purged for any sign of
breakouts, weight gain, or unacceptable quantities of ethnicity.

Rhode is at her most persuasive when arguing that in America, discrimination against unattractive
women and short men is as pernicious and widespread as bias based on race, sex, age, ethnicity,
religion, and disability. Rhode cites research to prove her point:

• 11 percent of surveyed couples say they would abort a fetus predisposed toward obesity.
• College students tell surveyors they’d rather have a spouse who is an embezzler, drug user,
or a shoplifter than one who is obese.
• The less attractive you are in America, the more likely you are to receive a longer prison
sentence, a lower damage award, a lower salary, and poorer performance reviews.

And all of this is compounded by a virtually unregulated beauty and diet industry and soaring rates
of elective cosmetic surgery. Rhode reminds us how Hillary Clinton and Sonia Sotomayor were
savaged by the media for their looks, and says it’s no surprise that Sarah Palin paid her makeup
artist more than any member of her staff in her run for the vice presidency.

Critics such as Andrew Sullivan claim that if we legally ban appearance discrimination, the next
step will be legal protection of “the short, the skinny, the bald, the knobbly kneed, the flat-chested
and the stupid.” But Rhode points out that there are already laws against appearance
discrimination on the books in Michigan and six other locales. This hasn’t resulted in an explosion
of frivolous suits, she notes.
In each jurisdiction the new laws have generated between zero and nine cases annually. In
Michigan about 30 looks-discrimination suits are filed per year, of which on average only one is
litigated. The unworthy cases will be weeded out by the cost and burden of litigation, she contends.
And the legal system will have taken a symbolic step toward greater tolerance that may have the
effect of shifting social views, as did Brown v. Board of Education (with regard to race
discrimination) and Lawrence v. Texas (with respect to gay rights).

Of course the problem with making appearance discrimination illegal is that Americans just really,
really like hot girls. And so long as being a hot girl is deemed a bona fide occupational
qualification, there will be cocktail waitresses fired for gaining three pounds. It’s not just American
men who like things this way. In the most troubling chapter in her book, Rhode explores the
feminist movement’s complicated relationship to eternal youth.

The truth is that women feel good about competing in beauty pageants. They love six-inch heels.
They feel beautiful after cosmetic surgery. You can’t succeed in public life if you look old in
America. Of the 16 women in the U.S. Senate between ages 46 and 74, not one has gray hair.
Rhode cites one feminist icon after another who changed her mind about the evils of cosmetic
surgery, hair color, and Botox the instant the sagging, graying, and wrinkling set in.

To put it another way, appearance bias is a massive societal problem with tangible economic costs
that most of us—perhaps especially women—perpetuate each time we buy a diet pill or sneer at
Elena Kagan for not dressing like Miley Cyrus. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t work toward
eradicating discrimination based on appearance. But it may mean recognizing that the law won’t
stop us from discriminating against the overweight, the aging, and the imperfect, so long as it’s the
quality we all hate most in ourselves.

Questions for discussion

1. Does America have a "beauty bias?" Have you experienced it? Have you participated in it?

2. Should there be legal protection for discrimination based on appearance or weight?

3. What is the Christian response to the importance of appearance in our society today?

4. How far is too far for a Christian to go to enhance their appearance? Is make-up OK?
Earrings? Plastic surgery?