Many complain about bias in hiring, sir names, looks, ethnicity, age, weight, religion and sexual preference. And as much as talk of 'political correctness' just rubs me the wrong way - we all know there is indeed some truth to all that. Not long ago, I was discussing this with a good-looking white gal who was smart, articulate and certainly had a resume of success. She was aware of her status and good fortune.
She reiterated to me that she was lucky in many cases and could probably get by on looks alone, but wanted to succeed because she was smart and hard-working. That's a pretty good combination of factors she has going for her; Smart, Young, Healthy, Good Looking, White, and Hard Working. Heck, she could write her on ticket, I figure.
Indeed, I did concur with her assessment on our society's view of beauty and believe that much of it has to do with culture and natural selection, and we aren't going to be able to change that - and also, her view that 'looks only get you so far' is exactly how I see it too. Yes, she is correct, as we are not going to change that no matter how much social conditioning, PC, or brainwashing we bombard the minds of the masses with.
Over the years, I have contemplated another potential theory based on something Freud has stated. Specifically, about how men are automatically attracted to women who resemble their mother's during their earliest years and how that is imprinted from the breast feeding age and into late childhood - and because of this and the overall weight problems of our society that those women who are more plump and perhaps voluptuous will be 'in vogue' in the future. Which further maligns the runway model physique, even if it is more evolutionarily human considering the food scarcity issues during ancient past periods - just a scientific thought on the topic - to explain the reality that beauty is based on 'society's perception' and that perception is and will continue to be a moving target.
Some potential mates are turned off by intelligence, perhaps intimidated, just as good looks can intimidate, that's been my observation, and it becomes a double whammy for the top of the food chain, genetically speaking. However those genes do have so many advantages that they persist. As I've traveled around the US and elsewhere, I can always tell by the looks, mannerisms, and average intelligence of those I see - which gives away the affluence of the area.
Although I do believe that everyone should be equal under the law, I also realize we are not all equal and can never be regardless of how we might make laws to force it, at the end of the day, it's a losing proposition. Is that good or bad? Hard to say, but it is so presently and that is the way of things, of nature and we shouldn't pretend it isn't so, when everyone inherently knows it is, again without judgment of a perfect world, for we don't live in one anyway.
Yes, like her parents, both of my parents have decent looks, along with my brother and sister and most of our family, judging from our reunions - all the men with patrician features, and all the women, blonde hair with blue eyes and slender physiques - all very presentable. That is an advantage, anyone who says it isn't, simply isn't paying attention.
Still, in business, sports, or any of my other endeavors, hell, I just want the best person for the job, I want to win, otherwise I wouldn't be there, so I'd rather have the person regardless of anything else who can best perform, even if that person is an inorganic robot, AI system, or software algorithm. Others might disagree, and I understand, still, those who are species centric are no better than those who are ethnocentric, again, call it what it is; hypocrisy. Philosophy, perhaps, but, I've put a bit of thought into such concepts. Do you have a different view in the land of unions, big labor, bankruptcy and collapse? Now that I've made you, my reader, think. I've done my job here today.