As much as I applaud Mr. York for coining a new ‘-ism,’ I think that ‘sexyism’ has been around for a lot longer than ‘racism’ and perhaps even longer than ‘sexism’ – although who can know for sure. Certainly the Greeks had some conception of the power of pretty people in a work environment. I recall hearing something about the belief that if lovers went into battle together they would fight more fiercely to preserve one another. Yet who would you rather have at your side when a horde of Persians descends upon you: lovely yet languid Damian or the loathsome yet lethal Pythias?
I am for equality of the sexies. I believe that unsexy or, to put it plainly, ‘ugly’ people can contribute just as much to society, if not more than anyone else. After all, who’s to say what’s sexy and what’s not not. And when do we set the standard for sexy? If I originally granted you admission to my university because you were sexy, but later tire of your deep brown eyes and soft skin is it alright to just kick you out? In fact I think one of the problems with the term sexyist is that what is at stake is not just ’sexiness,’ but physical beauty, which at least to me are two different things.
When taken as a focus on physical beauty, sexyism turns out to have a lot in common with racism and sexism, two other fixations on the skin-deep. Mr. York points out that racism or sexism are illegal because of two criterion: they are 1) unrelated to the job and 2) uncontrollable. Mr. York argues that beautiful people make for a more pleasant work environment, making beauty relevant and passing the first criterion. He also posits that people can control how beautiful they are, which passes the second.
However, in the sense that Mr. York discusses sexyism, racism and sexism are also related to the creation of a harmonious work environment. No one can stop people from being individuality racist or sexist. Even without these biases, however, one could argue for the benefits of a single-sex office full of only men or women who can talk as lewdly as they like or a monoracial office without racial or cultural misunderstandings. The reason we strive against sexism and feminism- and now sexism – is because we believe there is no relation between sex, race, or beauty and how an individual carries out the tasks for which they have been employed. If admitting people into a private institution or public place on the basis of how their presence affected the work environment were legal, then desegregation never would have occurred and Rosie never would have riveted.
This is not to say that we don’t want attractive people in our workplace. Indeed physical beauty also fails Mr. York’s second criteria – it is unchangeable. I’m not talking about plastic surgery . I’m talking about the eye of the beholder. No matter how beautiful we think we are by any standard, a split-second judgment can label us “ugly.” Beauty is so subjective that even within a ‘race’ or sex or sexual orientation there is no universal ‘beautiful.’ One need only to observe a group of high school boys comparing their idea of a hot 10 and mediocore 6.5 to to confirm this.
Attraction is another matter. Physical attraction and charisma are valuable skills that should sought out and used as a basis for finding talent. Working well with individuals, leading a team, communication skills, these are all manifestations of physical or mental attraction that are cultivated just as well – if not better – by the unsexy as the sexy. In fact promoting sexyism may prove especially harmful because we miss out on the talents that are only developed by living in a body that many do not consider beautiful. As any pick-up artist would tell you, physical beauty has some allure, but its effect is negligible compared to a deep ‘inner game.’ Cary in Sex in the City implies as much when she proclaims, “ I never sleep with a man that’s too good-looking. They’re never good in bed, because they never needed to be.”
Indeed, history is full of examples of not beautiful yet charismatic and powerful leaders. Certainly the quick-witted Abe Lincoln was no less effective an orator for his craggy features. And although we may not at first glance understand why FDR married her, Eleanor was a worthy spokesperson for many a noble cause. An openly sexyist institution no only discourages the highly talented if lesss beautiful candidates, but may incentivize a braindrain, attracting those who focus on beauty at the expense of depth. In South Korea, a mirror-laden society that openly practices sexyism, plastic surgery for graduating high school andcollege seniors is widespread, with half of women having received someform of plastic surgery and eight out of ten considering it. Sexyism doesn’t even encourage health, but rather a slavish devotion to an unattainable ideal.
Even for the absolutely brazen sexyist set on hiring only perfect 10’s, a legal acknowledgement of sexiness-based discrimination would have to allow for reverse sexyism. If it becomes alright to discriminate against those we find unattractive, what about keeping people who are too attractive out of the office: case in point Deborah Lorenzana, former Citibank employee, fired for being a ‘hottie.’ In Lorenzana’s case, despite being an excellent banker, her voluptuous figure made her employers uncomfortable enough to impose increasingly absurd clothing regulations upon her and give away clients to other employees. In the sexyist world, they could have easily said that their idea of beauty was someone like Ms. Lorenzana’s flat-chested co-workers and fired her on the spot. Saying yes to sexyism may very well eliminate some of the most attractive members of our workforce at the hands of jealous or immature co-workers.
On a final note, I would argue that even image dependent industries like fashion and entertainment regard sexyism as disadvantageous. Models are often chosen not for being ‘attractive,’ but for having an emaciated physique that may make clothes look a certain way and sell more muumuus. Actors are chosen for certain traits beyond sexiness: there are some beautiful roles –the hero, the ingénue – but many more funny-looking, old, or uglyones. Even in these industries, the standard is not ‘what do I think is beautiful,’ but ‘who is the best person for the job.’
Sexyism is perhaps more a part of human nature than racism or sexism. But as much as we’re attracted to a pretty face, we also know that it’s not everything. Now that sexyism has emerged to the forefront of the civil rights debate, it’s an opportunity to affirm what we knew all along: “Beauty is only skin deep.”
The fact that there’s no universal conception of “beauty” seems to render sexyism less objectionable, not moreso. With racism, African Americans are mostly easily identified, allowing the politically and economically dominant white majority to systematically undermine their success. But if beauty is subjective, then presumably everyone’s on a relatively equal playing field as a whole, albeit not while competing for individual positions.
This brings up a separate issue: sexism, racism, and homophobia are especially pernicious because they all involve discrimination against vulnerable groups that constitute a minority of the workforce. By my last count, ugly people far outnumber attractive people, so the same systemic problems seem less likely.
In South Africa, though the whites were a minority, they monopolized the political, military, and economic power of the nation. I don’t think you could say the same thing about attractive people here. In fact, despite entertainers being disproportionately visible, most of the richest and most powerful people in America are fairly old and unattractive.
In fact, aging seems to be another mitigating factor, since any benefits to be reaped through sexyism are purely transient.
I will agree that sexyism may not benefit some individuals for their whole lives, but on the same grounds, if someone found a way to change their race, sexual orientation, or sex, discriminating based on these would not all of a sudden become acceptable.
I have noticed that rich people are old and unattractive. This, I suspect, is attributable to a historically commendable lack of sexyism in America.
Although racism seems more systematic in its implementation, racism, sexism, sexyism, and even homophobia are frowned upon because they impose subjective prejudices based on certain traits. The important part is not that I can identify who belongs to a group – few would have known an octoroon had a black ancestor – but that I impose my insular logic upon another’s identity based on a few external traits.
As far as ugly people being a vulnerable population, research done on the labor market and appearance indicates that there are real financial and professional disadvantages for those who others consider ‘ugly.’ In this sense, sexyism mirrors the backwards hierarchy of racism where a minority successfully discriminate against a majority of the population (e.g. colonial South Carolina, South Africa under apartheid).