Today I excitedly shared the news of being added to The Best Conservative Blogs on the Internet. He didn't know I blogged so I said "Yes, it's pretty new and there aren't that many posts. I think I mainly got added because I'm pretty", to which my friend immediately took offense on my behalf. "Doesn't that bother you? That you're being judged on looks and not merit?" he asked, to which I said:
No, it doesn't.
1. My blog plainly states that I am two things- cute and conservative (or at least that I *think* I'm these things). I don't see any problem with people judging me based on either criteria, as those are the criteria I have selected for judgement, and
2. If I didn't want people to look at me I wouldn't put pictures of myself on the internet. That's internet 101.
I don't think looking the way I do, the way I was born, is any different than any other god-given talent or advantage. I was still pretty even when I shaved my head and had a face full of piercings, so I don't think there's a whole lot I can do to change this fact. If someone chooses to favor me in some way- like read my blog- based on this unchangeable fact I don't see it as being any different than being favored because I'm good at math or have an outgoing personality.
It would be very difficult for an unattractive actor to star in movies, an unattractive singer to get played on MTV, an unattractive politician to get elected. But keep in mind that an incredibly attractive man who can't read well enough to read cue cards isn't going to be on TV anytime soon, either. Looks only get you just so far.
We have the privilege of living in a free market economy. If a consumer wants to spend their money seeing a horrible movie with a really cute actor, that is their choice, just like if you're only reading this post because you think I'm cute it's also your choice. If you want to risk missing an important business call because you hired a secretary who was hot rather than competent it's also your choice. If you pick an ineffective laundry detergent over a better one because the ineffective one had prettier packaging... The list goes on and on.
That's the beauty of a free market- you can make business decisions based on any criteria you want. Even if that criteria is who is the prettiest. It might not be "fair", but the free market isn't regulated based on what's "fair".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Firstly, you never told me that the title of your blog is "Cute AND Conservative- I'm a total catch".
If I had known that you'd marginalized yourself within its very title, I would've agreed with you: that under such circumstances, it'd be reasonable to judge your blog according to your own arguably low standards.
Secondly, the fact you post pictures of yourself on the internet is irrelevant. I fail to see how simply posting pictures of oneself on the internet serves as a request to be judged according to one's appearance.
You mention that because we have a free market economy (which is an absurd notion; government entanglement in business is as obvious as it could possibly be), people have the choice to watch "horrible" movies starring physically attractive actors. Presumably, you intend to suggest that people also have a similar choice in reading your blog based on your physical attributes.
But this has nothing at all to do with my argument, nor is it something I disagree with.
Yes, people have the right (and may choose) to read your blog for superficial reasons. Similarly, people have the right (and may choose) to watch "horrible movies", only because the actors are attractive.
Obviously, exercising a choice does not imply that the choice exercised is an intelligent one.
Though in using phrases such as "god-given talent or advantage", I suspect this argument will fall upon deaf ears.
I wonder this, however: given that you believe in god, why should you believe that you've been afforded an "advantage"?
It seems to me it's a contention that combines both egotism and self-righteousness.
Well, I *am* both egotistical and self-righteous (which I will admit freely), and I don't believe in God. I think in modern culture it's reasonable to assume that using that word doesn't preclude belief in it, ex "oh my god", etc. But that's beside the point.
Modern consumers aren't smart and no one expects them to be. I mean, I will freely admit that I own a macbook because it's a pretty status symbol. The decision wasn't based exclusively on it looking pretty and how cool I'd look sitting in a coffee shop using it, but those were the overwhelming factors. I suspect that Apple knows this, considering it's products are space-like and incredibly user-friendly. I'm sure they don't outright assume their users are idiots, but I think they're vastly more idiot-friendly than their windows counterparts.
So I think arguing that a choice isn't "smart" WRT economic decisions is silly. Companies, and especially advertisers, know their consumers are not necessarily smart, and especially swayed by pretty things. Which most likely had a direct relationship with consumers becoming "less smart"- we don't make smart decisions about products anymore because (for the most part, and unless you happen to read things like industry and tech news) the information that would lead us to make those decisions is not readily available, it's not readily available because we don't care and don't want it.
How many people shop at American Apparel because they treat workers fairly vs. the number of people who shop there because all their friends do and they have pretty colors?
Post a Comment