Unemployed? Ugly? Ugh, no thanks, says fitties-only job website Ugly people have been banned from a new jobs site which only offers positions to applicants who are easy on the eye. The owners of a notorious dating website called Beautiful People have launched a new recruitment service allowing employers to hire good-looking lackeys. Only those deemed pretty enough to join the dating site …
We know where they are and can avoid them.... I have seen people be dumped from long term relationships because they 'let themselves go' by putting on 10lbs
Was trying for aomething philosophical about shallowness but its too early in the am for dealling with these windowlickers...
" "pretty much everybody agrees on what's easy on the eye."
Tell me, are you aware that you simply copy the opinions of the people around you who metaphorically shout the loudest, or is it totally unconscious?"
Are you aware that blank slate psychology went out of favor with Freud? How old are you?
"Tell me, are you aware that you simply copy the opinions of the people around you who metaphorically shout the loudest, or is it totally unconscious?"
Okay, sure. Nobody agrees on who's attractive. It's completely random. That's why the highest-rated people on the hotness-rating web sites are middle aged, somewhat overweight, and have bad skin.
Plus it would be fairly hypocritical anyway. It has always struck me as something of a contradiction at the heart of our expressed social values we always talk about how beauty is only skin deep and how important it is to value people for their minds and not their bodies etc. etc.. But then when you look around at any given couple, if you were to put each them on a looks scale of 1-10, each half of the couple would get nearly always get the same score or would be just 1 point apart. You rarely get a 1 with a 10 or even a 7 with a 10 (and if you do the 7 was more often as not a 10 when the couple first got together). Of course it is often remarked on that this "rule" is slightly asymmetrical such that you will more frequently find less good looking men with better looking women than the other way round, though then there are sub rules. The man will tend to be a) charismatic, b) rich or c) a really good laugh) and still these tend to be outliers and the difference is rarely more than 2-3 "points" (and as an interesting aside, scientists have found there is remarkably consistent agreement between people in terms of the scale of 1-10 "looks score" ascribed to any given individual)
So my point is simply that there is a huge contradiction in the values we publicly subscribe to (where we all nod sagely and declare looks aren't as important as brain and how important it is to be authentic) when the evidence is a clear as clear can be that that is not, as a rule, how we behave.
You're missing part of the equation here. Looks are an ice-breaker: we approach people initially because we like the way they look and/or because we're being realistic about the chances of their liking the way we look. But that's not enough by itself for a long-term relationship. So, yes, people in long-term relationships tend to be roughly as good-looking as each other because of that first hurdle of initial physical attraction. But that doesn't mean that that's why they're together: you're ignoring all the dozens of people who got past that first hurdle cause they looked right for each other but haven't ended up together long-term because they couldn't stand each other's conversation. People aren't being hypocritical when they say that looks aren't what matter; they've learnt it from experience, having approached dozens of people based on looks alone and only found one or two of them they really liked.
There is also a major exception to your rule, where hordes of absolutely stunning women get together with hideously bog-ugly men. That exception is Glasgow. God, I love Glasgow.
@Squander Two
"There is also a major exception to your rule, where hordes of absolutely stunning women get together with hideously bog-ugly men. That exception is Glasgow. God, I love Glasgow."
That's because if they don't want to leave Glasgow, they have absolutely no choice, whatsoever.
They can call it what they want but I don't see the difference between this and a form of Arianism, selective breeding for selective tasks.
Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Michael Dell even Kim bloody Dotcom etc were/are anything but good looking, they all managed to do quite well.
uh, how does a first century JW come into this ? Or do you mean something related to the concept of an Aryan race which some European religious types like, while concurrently despising humans from places like Afghanistan, some of whom had certificates of Aryan purity post WW2. Never understood the craziness of being considered superior for having a broken melanin production gene.
As for beauty, all in eye of beholder. Good looking yanks do seem to do better, but the down side is having to work with types like themselves. A fitting punishment. And yes, I am old, fat, well over 50 and do not give a damn. Always found the most interesting people are usually not immediately pleasing to the eye.
"I wouldn't go as far as saying retarded, but with that massive chin, huge forehead, wonky teeth, funny shaped ears and an eye that looks like its had its very own stroke, I certainly think its a bit rich of him to be running a site called BeautifulPeople.com!"
Why? Is he trying to get a job?
The issue is not of the applicant being "good looking" or not. The issue is the applicant being so narcissistic that he (or she) has decided to leverage Beautiful People membership in a work context. I find it difficult to believe that such a person is likely to put work first, his/her narcissism second after they have been employed.
I think we should thank the owner of the site for providing a valuable public service (as long as it allows ugly employers to access it).
" The issue is the applicant being so narcissistic that he (or she) has decided to leverage Beautiful People membership in a work context. I find it difficult to believe that such a person is likely to put work first, his/her narcissism second after they have been employed."
And something, somewhere will cost them a lot of money for joining a vanity club.
There's a turd in the shallow end of the gene pool.
most husbands are bang on for a tall slim nanny too.
Personally I prefer buying stuff from ugly people, it makes me feel better and they tend not to be such giant twats (often they're miserable though, or evil, or cunning, or know their product, etc, and I can relate to that, not exactly being a handsome person myself.)
Like if I buy a suit, I want to buy it from a weird old guy who looks like he's come out of a horror film or some such. Haircuts should be dodgy old men who motion at random pictures from the 60s on the wall. etc etc
I have a face like a bag of smashed crabs...
I have the body of a god: Buddha.
I have a funny, witty equally munted partner.
We enjoy each other’s company, we are happy. We are not vacuous.
I am a competent techie, pestie, PAT tester, (with the certificates to prove it) have good people skills, am numerate and literate. I use the word "something", not "sumfink" etc etc.
If your only requirement for a position is your physical appearance then I am glad NOT to work for you or your companies.
Bet the staff turnover is incredible as they quickly realise that brains and beauty rarely come in the same package..(Ms Vorderman excluded)...
This post has been deleted by its author
If they did interviews in a similar way to "The Voice".
First round get qualifications only so you can offer round two interviews to those qualified.
Round two interviews have a written test,
Round three interviews, have a phone interviews with the remaining applicants.
Round four have a final in person interview with the remaining 2 or 3 candidates at once in a 'head to head' interview.
That way you couldn't really be accused (until the final round) of hiring based on looks / gender / ethnicity / religion because you don't know any of that stuff until the final round (or possibly the phone round if they have a thick accent)
All of the smarmy, go-getting, life-coach-believing NPD'ers can go get jobs in firms far, far away from the lot of us, where they can work their way up to insignificant middle management positions and then spend the rest of their lives bitter and stuck as their beauty fades and we bark empty, cynical laughs from our worn leather chairs.
Well that's an odd one isn't it?
In theory, if a company's selling point is like the previously mentioned Abercrombie and similar, that they have fit, healthy looking attractive staff to front their store, should they not be allowed to advertise and look for these people? Likewise when a fashion house is parading their clothes, they need models of particular looks and sizes to model them, are they wrong to have this requirement? Do car companies pick the models to drape themselves over their latest luxury cars have requirements as well?
Not to say that it's right or wrong, but political correctness can go too far and some jobs do need above average staff - not necessarily just on the physical looks front either.
Actually bringing that up reminds me of a news story I read many moons ago, probably a daily fail thing I can't remember.
Basically it was a guy getting into trouble because he advertised that he only wanted English people to work in his resteraunt. His arguement was that the polish store down the road only hired polish people, and he was just saving foreigners from wasting their time applying for a job they wouldn't get.
Mind you it was a few years back. Probably one of the PC gone wrong complaints. Or some facet being missed deliberately if it was in the DF.
Probably, the other company didn't explicitly only hire Polish staff. A requirement to speak fluent Polish is allowed or alternatively no 'English' people actually applied for the job.
An ex of mine used to work in an Indian restaurant as a waitress (she's black African descent) and was the only non-Indian there, simply because no others applied.
But your criteria appear to start with face value.
What the issue is is sexism and you seem to be in favour of it as you roll out excuses.
'Political correctness' my arse.
That is always trotted out by someone with something to lose -- and coined by those who always demanded that 'something must be done' and moan like hell when it is and affects them.
I personally don't see the problem with some people getting certain jobs based on how good they look in a swimsuit and other people getting other jobs based on their ability to write code. Society has lots of different roles to fill, and we should all be allowed to find our niche.
The problem arises because the mistakes only go in one direction: some fuckwits will hire, say, a C# programmer based on their looks, but no-one would ever hire a swimsuit model because they can multiply hexadecimal numbers together in their head.
"Would be totally illegal here in the UK.
Except that its not. There are 9 recognised characteristics against which one can be discriminated, of which appearance/attractiveness is not one:
http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/discrimination_e/discrimination_about_discrimination_e/equality_act_2010_discrimination_and_your_rights.htm
Typical responses from the (apparently or admittedly) not so beautiful but brainy. You say it's wrong then go on to say how they must be thick. That's just the same discrimination (or just logical choice) on a different level isn't it? I'm sure there are IT recruitment companies that would refuse applicants with no IT qualifications but stunning good looks, why would that be any different?
As Billy Connely said, "Beauty is only skin deep, but ugly goes right to the fucking bone!"
http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/08/16/two-tables-from-beauty-pays/
Table 3.1 is reproduced from an "Beauty and the Labor Market" in an American economics academic journal and beautiful people earn more money, and surprise beautiful women do better than beautiful men, and ugly men do worse than ugly women
I'm posting this from my own computer in my own time...
I've noticed there is also a dating site for people who wear or like those who wear uniform as part of their job. I think that pretty much means Police or Firemen as I can't imagine there are many who get turned on by a person in a McDonald's polo shirt and cap!
A site only catering for good looking jobseekers isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'd imagine if you become flush enough to step into an Aston Martin dealership with the intention of buying a motor, you'd expect the person greeting you and taking your money to be fairly attractive or at least well presented. Fair enough the best looking person on the site may not be suitable for the job but at least if you browsed the site you'd be able to select somebody who is guaranteed to not be a munter and you'd avoid the embarrasment of people turning up to your fine showroom for an interview who look more suited to the role of Extra on a zombie movie set.
The site exists, I assume, for employers who have a simple requirement but want to be a bit discreet about it. You may not join if you aren't aesthetically gifted but then who's to say that all companies would join such a site to fill their vacancies? Probably not many as I'd imagine it wouldn't go down very well if a large known company or local council were found to be recruiting from there. I suspect many wouldn't even look there at all for that reason alone so I don't think us ugly ducklings have anything to worry about.
I stand zero chance of not being hung drawn and quartered on the ugly tree, but I think it is a wonderful idea. Frankly when I am on a plane being addressed by a stewardess I want a pretty girl (preferably with a brain) because I will see her several times on an average flight and frankly some over weight lard arse with acne, bad breath and sweat stains under the blubbery arm pits really is quite disgusting.
Similarly for bar girls, waitresses in restaurants and assistants in shops. Frankly even the girl on reception is more of an up lift if you want to say a cheery hi as you walk in.
Hopefully the people recruiting for such roles will use the site, but I sadly reckon that with todays 'politically correct' culture where we are all supposed to forget the aesthetics and not mind sitting next to an overweight frump for hours will win out and keep employing the trouts.
Heh, well I've been on the site for a couple of years (though haven't used it in most of that time), but without wanting to blow one's own trumpet, I'm consistently outperforming my (less aesthetically pleasing) colleagues at work (backed up with tangible awards and quarterly bonuses), so your theory doesn't always ring true.
Bring on the downvotes...........
If one is recruiting people for an industry where appearance is at a premium, for example. High fashion retail, for example.
Selecting an employee (or anything else for that matter) is all about assigning weights to attributes one seeks in a candidate and then evaluating each one. If one values appearance over some other factor, then that will be given a higher multiplier. Keep in mind that the weights necessarily always add up to 100%, one must also consider that scores for other attributes will be lowered.
If you are fortunate enough to hire someone who is good looking AND smart, you'll have to ask yourself how long she'll last in a job surrounded by morons.
Paris, because this is all about scoring.
Does any of this really matter? People working in HR/recruitment are barely able to tie their own shoelaces, let alone pick decent candidates for jobs.
They're so easily fooled by over-confident IT failures (otherwise known as 'web developers') overselling their skills that they might as well be sending people to interviews based on any old criteria. Might as well be 'fitidity'.
I look forward to Looked-IN the website for arrogant professionals. Those that talk the talk but can't sashay the walk.
Douglas Adams as always is ahead of us, BeautifulPeople.condem sounds like the Golgafrinchans. With a little bit of luck they will all be infected by a dirty Telephone.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
