The good news is if you’re ugly, you might be making more
money than those who are less unsightly than you are, you freak.
The bad news is since Hillary Clinton is “less
conventionally attractive” and regarded as “a threat” by other women something something
something Donald Trump is in the White House. As opposed to Sarah Palin(!) who
is prettier and thus easier for men to control. Or something.
At least that’s what I garner from Peggy Drexler’s confusing
column – “Ugly People Earn More, but at What Cost?” – on CNN this morning.
I should announce right now I am a self-declared ugly
person, and have applauded Unsightly Rights on this blog before. So Drexler’s
reportage on a study by the Journal of Business and Psychology’s reportage
revealing the least attractive 3% of the population out-earned the 50% who are
“only sort of ugly or just average looking” should please me.
This is where you get to hear about my big but.
Drexler argues – without offering any support – that ugly
people earn more because of the “human tendency to favor the underdog,” and
that this is “not a noble act,” but rather a form of “intra-gender sexism, or
clear and troubling evidence of female misogyny.”
Rewarding the ugly (and here she implies ugly women
rewarding ugly women) “is one way to keep those more threatening women down.”
Now I’m no expert in any of this malarkey. But I can spot a
person using a study to support their pet notions from miles away.
Note: I’m not saying Drexler isn’t right – I am going to say
she does a poor job proving her point.
No comments:
Post a Comment