Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

I discriminate women based on their looks watch

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FireGarden)
    If they are equally matched, there has to be some method of making the decision. "Equally matched" here I do hope means "every aspect that matters to the job is equal", and in such a case, any method of deciding between the two is arbitrary; there is no natural or better choice.

    The choice that makes the office a nicer looking place is as good as any.
    This bald bit is complete gibberish and I would not be surprised if this is how discrimination in the workplace happens. You need to take a look at your thinking because you are displaying a mindset here that provides a breeding ground for the discrimination of people within a work setting.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymous)
    What are you on about?

    I am not upset at all. You need to stop making assumptions, it will get you into trouble within the professional environment.

    I started this thread because I feel slightly bad for discriminating this way.
    The problem with this although obviously you do do it, being a female we see it as a general day to day occurrence, some of us are used to it some of us not, you just need to sit down think to yourself should you really be doing this?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymous)
    It feels unethical. Often when I am interviewing women, I am judging them based on their looks.

    Say I have 10 girls to pick from, all equally matched,I start becoming ultra picky. Even if one has a slightly better personality than the other, I choose the hotter one, as she will be the face of our firm and is likely to close more deals.
    Perhaps you need to really reconsider whether you should be doing your job if you are choosing employees like this, for me I think its pretty sick. Just because you think a woman is less attractive does not mean she should lose out on a job opportunity, I can't stand this way of thinking it's disgusting. I am guessing you are male considering your incredible amount of focus on a women's looks. I am sure there are men who could do this job ethically better but maybe a woman would be less focused on looks when hiring people and instead focus on their important qualities.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yo radical one)
    If I were hiring workers for a role on the front-line with customers I would hire the best looking people (I would also hire men who are very handsome), I would not feel bad about it either, being good-looking is just another credential in my mind. In the same way, if I were hiring for a role which required heavy-lifting, I would pick the people who looked to have the strongest bodies, don't see why this is even supposed to be controversial.
    Discrimination is wrong it does not matter what excuse you use.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Swirll)
    0/10, too obvious

    The lack of grammar in the thread title/post makes me think OP doesn't have a job anywhere TBH.
    Clearly you haven't met many people in marketing or PR...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    Clearly you haven't met many people in marketing or PR...
    That's not really true, but whenever I do meet them they're either doing freelance work for me or I'm considering hiring them, so they have a tendency to bring their A game :lol: (I run my own business)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymous)
    As part of my job in PR, I have to recruit PR/marketing people.

    Often if I have equally matched candidates, that are female, I have a preference for the more attractive female. As I feel that they will get more clients on board.

    I feel bad for doing this, should I?

    There is nothing wrong with that, it's common sens good looking people are better.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Fair play to you. If I ever got a job like yours, I'd look at DDs before CVs


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The issue is that someone's attractiveness isn't concrete, it's not like a qualification, or physical strength, or other attributes. It's very much in the eye of the beholder, so what you think is attractive, many people won't. So I guess it might not make a hell of a lot of difference if the candidates are equally matched in other ways.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mancini)
    Discrimination is wrong it does not matter what excuse you use.
    That statement is beyond idiotic to make

    It's not wrong to discriminate against a convicted paedophile when it comes to getting jobs working with children (or any job in fact), nor is it wrong to discriminate in favour of more highly qualified people at the expense of those who are less qualified.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    This isn't remotely surprising though, is it? This goes on a many sectors of work, let alone in public relation! Even Waitrose prefer their checkouts populated by attractive blonde girls on summer holiday then 68 year old Mrs Thompson.
    • #1
    • Thread Starter
    #1

    (Original post by Swirll)
    As evidenced by almost every single post you've made on this thread, you can't use proper grammar to save your life, you write like a 15-year-old, and you're seriously asking why people are questioning why you say you're in the position to hire others?

    Your whole tone screams troll. Unlike you, I actually already work for a living and know how people in the corporate environment act. You are so obviously making stuff up and trying to get a reaction out of people that, quite frankly, it's hilariously pathetic.

    Get a life :lol: Do something better than wasting your time making threads like these on TSR.
    Do you know what, I actually don't care about writing formally on TSR. Stop being such a grammar nazi.

    Your vibe is extremely egotistical, which is off-putting. You are also continuously making assumptions?

    You are not as smart as you think you are. So stop derailing this thread out of insecurity.
    • #1
    • Thread Starter
    #1

    (Original post by LordScumbag)
    The issue is that someone's attractiveness isn't concrete, it's not like a qualification, or physical strength, or other attributes. It's very much in the eye of the beholder, so what you think is attractive, many people won't. So I guess it might not make a hell of a lot of difference if the candidates are equally matched in other ways.
    Whilst it is true that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, you can generally tell who is regarded to be conventionally attractive and who is not.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymous)
    Whilst it is true that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, you can generally tell who is regarded to be conventionally attractive and who is not.
    That's a fair point, but I guess I was trying to say that it's never 100% concrete, whereas a qualification is.
    • #1
    • Thread Starter
    #1

    (Original post by Mancini)
    Perhaps you need to really reconsider whether you should be doing your job if you are choosing employees like this, for me I think its pretty sick. Just because you think a woman is less attractive does not mean she should lose out on a job opportunity, I can't stand this way of thinking it's disgusting. I am guessing you are male considering your incredible amount of focus on a women's looks. I am sure there are men who could do this job ethically better but maybe a woman would be less focused on looks when hiring people and instead focus on their important qualities.
    Yes, I am having an ethical dilemma, hence the thread.

    But I have really found that in this line of work, it helps with closing deals - may it be with potential clients, or consumers (if it is a product).
    • #1
    • Thread Starter
    #1

    (Original post by yo radical one)
    If I were hiring workers for a role on the front-line with customers I would hire the best looking people (I would also hire men who are very handsome), I would not feel bad about it either, being good-looking is just another credential in my mind. In the same way, if I were hiring for a role which required heavy-lifting, I would pick the people who looked to have the strongest bodies, don't see why this is even supposed to be controversial.
    That sums up my role.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yo radical one)
    That statement is beyond idiotic to make

    It's not wrong to discriminate against a convicted paedophile when it comes to getting jobs working with children (or any job in fact), nor is it wrong to discriminate in favour of more highly qualified people at the expense of those who are less qualified.
    You are completely stupid of course a criminal will be blocked from working at a certain job precisely because of his criminal record, you are illogical. What we are talking about here is discrimination based on how a person looks which is plain wrong. Labelling the legal blocking of a paedophile discrimination is beyond stupid and you need your head looked at.

    Learn to stick to the subject matter in question, if he was hiring for a modelling/ acting job that perhaps required good looks I would have no problem with him choosing based on looks but the job is not one that requires looks, yes looks may help to a degree but it should not be used as a major factor in the process.

    Nor is anyone debating about hiring a higher qualified person over a less, stick to the subject we are debating discriminating on a job based on how a person looks which even by British law depending on the job is against the law.

    Your response to me was not even worth a reply because it's so stupid but I am replying to you because there are probably other stupid people like you around who require enlightenment.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    You shouldn't feel bad because you're doing your job in the way you think is most effective. If you were doing it for personal reasons then it would be right to feel bad.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    do it in turn. one time the ugly one gets chosen over the fit one, and next time the fit one over the ugly one if this is the deciding factor between the applicants. only fair, you're being a bit too cruel otherwise.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Life isn't fair, so no.
    Same way models are picked for their features or actors for their roles, workers who are working in the public eye who's appearance might be a factor should expect some degree of judgement on that part IMO.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 20, 2014
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.