I concur with York’s conclusion: sexyism is perfectly acceptable. I’m less comfortable endorsing his true, but limited grounds for asserting as much. Beauty is not entirely predetermined, and there’s nothing wrong with acknowledging the positive externalities of a competent co-worker, who also happens to be gorgeous. But York unwittingly makes the best argument against this whole preposterous cause: who decides the beautiful?
York grudgingly admits he has been on the receiving end of sexyism. Sadly, his admission is entirely unmerited. I applaud his successes in life and would hold him up as an icon for every plain Jane (or James). Don’t worry, kids: your smarts will win in the end. Just ask Mr. York.
[I, on the other hand, must admit that I lead a life of sexyist privilege, hence the title of this piece. I mention this purely in the interest of full disclosure.]
But that’s precisely the problem: beauty or worse, sexiness, is deeply subjective, highly contextual, broadly cultural. A sexyist HR director at Hooters would show Liv Tyler the door, while I can’t remember seeing Pamela Anderson on the runways in Milan or Paris. The problem gets worse the farther you get from organizations with an explicitly beautiful bent (say, the fashion industry or the silver screen). What constitutes beautiful in a law firm? What constitutes a sexy travel agent?” What roles does sexyism play in DMV hiring? The answer to the last is clearly none…none whatsoever.
Take it out of the office, and the problem is hopeless: should we worry about sexyism in river rafting guides? Obviously, lives are at stake, and we want the most competent people guiding landlubbers down the Snake River. At the same time, my pasty, somewhat blubbery self doesn’t exactly project the hearty outdoorsman look that will instill confidence in my passengers. And when lives are at stake, trust may be of the utmost importance. Not only is it a different standard for every job, it’s useful (as York pointed out), and in some cases necessary.
Mr. Benavides makes some excellent points about the subjective nature of beauty, and how it can actually harm a workplace. On these purely consequentialist grounds he dubs it a civil right, and holds it impermissible. Mr. B seems to have forgotten that hiring decisions do not occur in a vacuum: companies overstocked with Bimbos with feel the wrath of the market. A firm of chesty lawyers may increase associate satisfaction rankings (or not, as Benavides points out), but it will be the first on the chopping block when a company has to cut its legal department. A team of sexy grocery store clerks is entertaining to muse upon, but all the Megan Foxes in the world won’t save a store with unstocked shelves.
In short, sexyism is perfectly legitimate in some cases, and unfortunately discriminatory in others. I am perfectly content letting the market weed out the latter.
The “market will solve” argument seems like a dangerous one. Couldn’t you make precisely the same claim in defense of sexism, homophobia, or racism?
In the context of my criticism of Benavides, no. Benavides’ criticisim of sexyism dwells entirely on its consequences.
It doesn’t mean that all other things being equal, the beautiful person won’t win out. I just don’t have a problem with that. I do think that companies/firms that favor beauty to the detriment of qualities that give them a comparative advantage will lose marketshare or create an opportunity for a competitor.
Of course, all of this assumes a reasonably functional free market, which is increasingly less the case in the United States.
I think you miss the distinction I make between sexyism and hiring based on appearance in my article.
Sexyism is hiring based on finding someone physically attractive.
As I – and you – mention, the modelling and acting industries cannot afford to practice sexyism, because in those industries the physical body has an important relation to the job.
This is really the heart of my critique: that sexyism is an unreasonable standard in the workplace because it 1) has no relation to a job and 2) hiring based on a personal notion of beauty constitutes an unfair and unattainable standard to the applicant.
I do not judge sexyism a problem based on the consequences of a bimbo-filled workplace – just as I would not judge an all black or all woman workplace to always be inherently unfavorable. To me the sexyist moment is unjust discrimination because it has no relation with the job at hand and relies on an uncontrollable standard – the eye of the beholder.
The free market has no place in such a debate. In fact the free market easily tolerates a firm rife with immoral practices as long as people by their product.
Madness. Here is the Benavides rule:
Any criteria which has no relation to the job at hand and is subjective is immoral.
A) I offered examples of the myriad ways it could apply to the job at hand.
B) Who defines what “has no relation with the job at hand”?
C) When did “arbitrary” or “subjective” become synonymous with “immoral.” I prefer not to work with gassy people? Am I guilty of IBSism? I find myself creeping closer to Halpin’s line of thinking.
And to clarify, I don’t think your narrowing attempt works: if you really want to limit our discussion solely to people who affirmatively hire on the basis of lust, then my responses are even more apt. Replace “lust” with “like” and you see how meaningless your rule becomes. Countless hiring decisions are made because businesses want to cultivate a friendly atmosphere. On what grounds does cultivating a passionate atmosphere become immoral, but an atmosphere predicated on friendliness perfectly acceptable?