|
Article Excerpt
INTRODUCTION
I. THE IMPORTANCE OF APPEARANCE AND THE COSTS OF CONFORMITY A. Definitions of Attractiveness and Forms of Discrimination B. Interpersonal Relationships and Economic Opportunities C. Self-Esteem and Quality of Life D. Time and Money E. Health Risks II. THE INJUSTICE OF DISCRIMINATION A. The Rationale for Banning Discrimination Based on Appearance 1. Equal opportunity: bias, stereotypes, and stigma 2. Subordination: compounding inequalities based on class, race, ethnicity, gender, disability, and sexual orientation 3. Self-expression: personal liberty and cultural identity 4. The cumulative impact of bias based on appearance B. The Rationale for Discrimination and Resistance to Prohibitions 1. Public attitudes 2. Job performance, corporate image, and customer preferences 3. Pragmatic concerns 4. The parallel of sex harassment 5. The contributions of law III. LEGAL FRAMEWORKS A. The Regulation of Appearance B. The Limitations of Prevailing Legal Frameworks 1. Constitutional challenges 2. Statutory challenges based on sex, race, and religious discrimination 3. Discrimination based on disability C. Prohibitions on Appearance Discrimination 1. Local ordinances: Santa Cruz, Urbana, San Francisco, the District of Columbia, Howard County, and Madison 2. Michigan 3. Australia 4. Europe 5. The contributions and limitations of laws on appearance discrimination IV. DIRECTIONS FOR REFORM A. Defining the Objectives B. Legal Strategies C. Political Activism, Policy Initiatives, and Research Agendas CONCLUSION
INTRODUCTION
"It hurts to be beautiful" is a cliche I grew up with. "It hurts not to be beautiful" is a truth I acquired on my own. But not until finishing the research that led to this Article did I begin to grasp the cumulative cost of our cultural preoccupation with appearance. Over a century ago, Charles Darwin concluded that when it came to beauty, "[n]o excuse is needed for treating the subject in some detail." (1) That is even truer today; our global investment in appearance totals over $200 billion a year. (2) Yet when it comes to discrimination based on appearance, an excuse for discussion does seem necessary, particularly for a legal scholar. Given all the serious problems confronting women--rape, domestic violence, poverty, child care, unequal pay, violations of international human rights--why focus on looks? Most people believe that bias based on beauty is inconsequential, inevitable, or unobjectionable. (3)
They are wrong. Conventional wisdom understates the advantages that attractiveness confers, the costs of its pursuit, and the injustices that result. Many individuals pay a substantial price in time, money, and physical health. Although discrimination based on appearance is by no means our most serious form of bias, its impact is often far more invidious than we suppose. That is not to discount the positive aspects of beauty, including the pleasure that comes from self-expression. Nor is it to underestimate the biological role of sex appeal or the health and fitness benefits that can result from actions prompted by aesthetic concerns. Rather, the goal is to expose the price we pay for undue emphasis on appearance and the strategies we need to address it.
What makes this issue so important is both our failure to address it and the unwillingness of so many legal scholars and policy makers to take that failure seriously. Of all the problems that the contemporary women's movement has targeted, those related to appearance have shown among the least improvement. In fact, by some measures, such as the rise in cosmetic surgery and eating disorders, our preoccupation with attractiveness is getting worse. Yet many commentators see discrimination based on appearance as inevitable and inappropriate for legal prohibition.
This Article, by contrast, argues that discrimination based on appearance is a significant form of injustice, and one that the law should remedy. Part I explores the importance of appearance and the costs of discrimination on that basis. Part II develops the rationale for prohibiting such discrimination. Part III reviews the limitations of prevailing civil rights laws concerning appearance and provides the first systematic research on the small number of state, local, and international laws that explicitly prohibit some forms of discrimination based on appearance. Part IV concludes with legal, policy, and cultural strategies to reduce the price of prejudice.
I. THE IMPORTANCE OF APPEARANCE AND THE COSTS OF CONFORMITY
I'm tired of all this nonsense about beauty being only skin deep. That's deep enough. What do you want, an adorable pancreas?--Jean Kerr
Beauty may be only skin deep, but that is deep enough to confer an unsettling array of advantages. Although most of us learn at early ages that physical attractiveness matters, few of us realize how much. Nor do we generally recognize the extent to which our biases conflict with meritocratic principles. In a recent national survey, only a third of employees believed that, in their workplaces, physically attractive individuals were more likely to be hired or promoted. (4) Yet a cottage industry of studies indicates that such bias is more pervasive, and that individuals underestimate the extent to which attractiveness skews their evaluations. (5) Appearance imposes penalties that far exceed what most of us assume or would consider defensible.
A. Definitions of Attractiveness and Forms of Discrimination
A threshold question is what exactly do we mean by "attractive." Is its influence something that researchers can adequately measure? Although conventional wisdom holds that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, in fact most beholders agree about the appeal of certain characteristics. Sociobiologists see an evolutionary basis for these preferred features. Facial symmetry, unblemished skin, and firm breasts have been widely viewed as evidence of health and fertility. (6) To be sure, some preferences, particularly those regarding grooming and body shape, have varied across time and culture. But the globalization of mass media and information technology has brought an increasing convergence in standards of attractiveness. (7)
Researchers on appearance have achieved a substantial measure of reliability through a "truth in consensus" method. (8) In essence, subjects rate a photograph or an individual on a scale of attractiveness, and those ratings are then averaged to produce an overall assessment. Such methods yield a strikingly high degree of consensus even among individuals of different sex, race, age, socioeconomic status, and cultural backgrounds. (9)
Research on weight discrimination also relies on widely shared measures, although some terminology is controversial. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) defines overweight and obesity based on a Body Mass Index (BMI), a ratio of height to weight; clinicians define obesity as 20% over ideal body weight. By CDC standards, about two-thirds of American adults are overweight or obese. (10) The National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance (NAAFA) prefers the term "fat," which its members believe carries less stigma and fewer contested connotations of abnormality. (11) However, in conventional usage, "fat" is generally taken as more offensive than "overweight." And for many researchers, "fat" appears less precise and less consistent with social science and legal terminology. This Article follows the preferences of these different constituencies in describing their work. "Obesity" and "overweight" are used to discuss social science findings and legal rulings, and "fat" is used to discuss the efforts of activists.
A related issue is what we mean by "discrimination based on appearance." Such bias falls along a continuum. At one end is discrimination based on characteristics that are difficult or impossible to change, such as height and facial features. Although sex, race, and ethnicity affect appearance, they implicate identity in a more fundamental sense than other traits and are generally considered separately in legal and theoretical discussions of discrimination. At the other end of the continuum are purely voluntary characteristics, such as fashion and grooming. In between are mixed traits, such as obesity, which have both biological and behavioral foundations. Social science research on appearance generally does not distinguish among these forms of bias; what makes a given individual attractive often reflects both innate features and voluntary grooming choices. However, as subsequent discussion suggests, discrimination based on factors beyond personal control generally raises the most significant ethical concerns and may sometimes justify different legal and policy treatment than other forms of appearance-related bias. (12)
B. Interpersonal Relationships and Economic Opportunities
The significance of appearance begins early. Parents and teachers give less attention to less attractive infants and children, and they are less likely to be viewed as good, smart, cheerful, likeable, and academically gifted than their more attractive counterparts. (13) Children themselves quickly internalize these judgments. They ascribe better personality traits to good-looking individuals and prefer them as friends. (14) The teasing and ostracism that unattractive and overweight children experience can lead to significant mental health problems and less extracurricular involvement, which further compound such psychological difficulties. (15)
The importance of appearance persists throughout adult life. The preference for attractiveness comes as no surprise, but the extent of the advantages is less obvious. A wide array of research documents a phenomenon that psychologists describe as "what is beautiful is good." Less attractive individuals are less likely to be viewed as smart, happy, interesting, likeable, successful, and well-adjusted. (16) They are less likely to marry and to marry someone well off; and surveyed college students would prefer a spouse who is an embezzler, drug user, or shoplifter than someone who is obese. (17) Unattractive litigants receive higher sentences and lower damage awards in simulated legal proceedings, while attractive litigants have an advantage. (18) Not only are the less attractive treated worse, their unfavorable treatment can erode self-esteem, self-confidence, and social skills, which compounds their disadvantages. (19)
Appearance also skews judgments about competence and job performance. In studies where subjects evaluate written essays, the same material receives lower ratings for ideas, style, and creativity when an accompanying photograph shows a less attractive author. (20) Resumes get a more favorable assessment when they are thought to belong to more attractive individuals. (21) Overweight people are subject to similar bias; they are seen as less likeable and as having less self-control, self-discipline, effective work habits, and ability to get along with others. (22) Good-looking faculty receive better course evaluations from students, and good-looking students receive higher ratings on intelligence from teachers. (23)
Unsurprisingly, the importance of looks varies across occupations and geographic locations. (24) On the whole, however, less attractive individuals are less likely to be hired and promoted, and they earn lower salaries despite the absence of any differences in cognitive ability. (25) The penalty holds even in fields like law, where appearance bears no demonstrable relationship to job performance. (26) Weight and age play a similar role. About 60% of overweight women and 40% of overweight men report experiences of employment discrimination. (27) Researchers consistently find a significant income penalty for being overweight, particularly among women, and a bonus for attractiveness in both sexes. (28) Well-documented bias against older workers has imposed increasing pressures to pass for young. (29)
C. Self-Esteem and Quality of Life
Given these consequences, it makes sense for individuals to be concerned about their appearance. Still, the extent of that concern is striking. In one representative survey, three-quarters of women ranked appearance as one of the top five qualities affecting their self-image, and a third ranked it as the most important quality, above job performance and intelligence. (30) Almost 90% consider how they look either "very important" or "somewhat important" to "feelings about who they are." (31) Over half of young women report that they would prefer to be hit by a truck than be fat, and two-thirds would rather be mean or stupid. (32) Most research suggests that obese individuals are at greater risk for depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, and other psychological and mental health problems. (33) Women are less satisfied with their appearance than with any other important life dimension but financial success. (34) As subsequent discussion suggests, much of the reason lies in the ridicule, shame, guilt, and discrimination that social pressures impose.
How much influence appearance has on overall quality of life is subject to debate. In general, however, most people overstate the importance of appearance in contributing to overall life satisfaction. Other factors, such as control, optimism, and interpersonal relationships, are more important. (35) Much of the effort and concern that individuals now invest in their appearance would be better spent on family, friends, and activities that contribute to their personal growth and sense of social responsibility. (36)
D. Time and Money
The costs of our cultural preoccupation with appearance are substantial. In financial terms, the annual global investment in grooming totals at least $115 billion: an estimated $38 billion for hair, $24 billion for skin care, $20 billion for cosmetic surgery, $18 billion for cosmetics, and $15 billion for perfume. (37) Americans also spend some $40 billion on diets, and slightly more on fitness, much of which is driven by concern about weight. (38) Investments in time are similarly substantial; although impossible to quantify with precision, American women spend an average of three-quarters of an hour a day just on basic grooming, and significant additional time on shopping, exercising, and consuming services ranging from pedicures to cosmetic surgery. (39)
Whether the scale of such expenditures makes sense is a matter of controversy. (40) From an individual standpoint, their rationality depends both on what consumers are hoping to achieve, and how well informed they are about their investments. Most appearance-related expenditures deliver some benefits in terms of how people feel about themselves and how they are perceived by others. But much of the investment falls short of its intended effect or is induced by fraudulent or misleading claims.
The weight loss industry offers a case in point. Ninety-five percent of dieters regain their weight within one to five years. (41) Yet in the fantasy land of diet marketers, miracle products abound. Product claims the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has targeted in consumer protection actions include:
* gel.a.thin[TM] topical gel reduces fat and cellulite deposits on contact;
* Ultra LipoLean diet pill results in as much as four pounds of weight loss a week without the need to diet;
* Siluette Patch, made from seaweed, eliminates fat deposits and causes rapid weight loss without dietary changes;
* Xena RX diet pill with green tea extract blocks up to 40% of the absorption of fat;
* Fat Seltzer Reduce dietary supplement eliminates fat without diets or exercise;
* Hanmeilin Cellulite Cream with Chinese herbs causes up to ninety-five pounds of weight loss and eliminates fat and cellulite with "No Will Power Required";
* Himalayan Diet Breakthrough, a pill containing Nepalese Mineral Pitch, causes as much as thirty-seven pounds of weight loss in eight weeks without diets or exercise. (42)
Equally inventive are the ads for "cosmeceuticals," cosmetic products that include chemicals and drug-like ingredients that aren't regulated by the Federal Food and Drug Administration. As the discussion below notes, some have undisclosed medical risks, and many carry pseudoscientific names and pedigrees. Consider StriVectin wrinkle cream, marketed as "Better than Botox?," selling at $135 a tube, and endorsed by Dr. Daniel B. Mowrey, director of the manufacturer's scientific affairs. Dr. Mowrey's degree is in experimental psychology, not medicine, a fact that the company says it is not obligated to disclose because its ad does not state otherwise. (43) Such claims are particularly problematic because a majority of Americans believe, incorrectly, that they cannot be made without "solid scientific evidence to support them." (44)
Even when advertising is not misleading, its expense often inflates the price of products well beyond what their contents justify. A Consumer Reports study found no correlation between the price and effectiveness of antiwrinkle creams. (45) Spending on cosmetics goes mainly to glitzy packaging and marketing; only seven cents out of every dollar goes for ingredients. (46)
Although consumer-protection law in theory provides remedies for fraudulent claims, in practice it is highly ineffective. (47) Traditionally, resource constraints have prevented the FTC and state consumer protection agencies from keeping up with the barrage of false or misleading advertisements involving beauty and diet products. As one FTC official explained, "[G]eneral appearance-enhancement claims ... are not high in our prosecution list." (48) Only when marketers also emphasize health benefits has the Commission begun to take a closer look. (49) And although consumers might have fraud claims, they seldom have sufficient damages to make challenges worthwhile. "Wrinkle-reducing creams are expensive," notes one expert, "but to litigate against companies is even more expensive." (50)
From a societal standpoint, the scale of investment in "cosmetic hoo ha" also raises concerns. (51) This nation spends more money on beauty than on reading material. (52) Although almost a fifth of the United States population lacks a usual source of health care, nonessential aesthetic procedures are the fastest growing area of medical expenditures. (53)
E. Health Risks
Although federal legislation provides some protection from risky appearance-related practices, it is by no means adequate to safeguard consumers. One problem is the absence of any requirement of governmental approval of cosmetics before marketing. (54) As a consequence, 80% of the 10,000 ingredients used in cosmetics and personal care products have never been assessed by the Federal Food and Drug Administration. (55) Moreover, enforcement of safety standards has been inadequate. An Environmental Working Group survey found that nearly 400 products sold in the United States contained chemicals that are prohibited in other countries, and that over 400 had contents considered unsafe by American industry standards; one in thirty failed to meet industry or federal requirements. (56) Many products that are too risky for sale in the United States can still be exported to countries with less rigorous regulatory structures. So, for example, skin bleaches that can lead to disease and disfigurement are marketed in many parts of Africa and the Caribbean. (57)
Humans are not the only victims of toxic cosmetics. Unlike the European Union, which in 2009 began barring products tested on animals, the U.S. permits such testing, and procedures for some products, such as Botox, result in the death of half of animals tested. (58)
Cosmetic surgical procedures pose other risks. Almost half are performed in office facilities that are not subject to the same state and federal regulations as hospitals and freestanding outpatient surgical centers. (59) Nor are these offices prepared to deal with complications such as those resulting from general anesthesia. (60) In many states, doctors who practice in offices rather than surgical facilities need not be board certified. (61) Few patients are aware of what certification means; many are misled by their physician's membership in associations with names similar to the official certifying association, the American Board of Plastic Surgery. (62) The problem is compounded by the absence of data concerning the risks of procedures in various settings, consumers' tendency to understate risks, and the lack of ethical standards by the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Cosmetic Surgery about when doctors should decline assistance. (63) Individuals suffering from Body Dysmorphic Disorder, a preoccupation with slight or imagined imperfections, can often undergo multiple procedures carrying substantial expense and risk with little objective benefit. (64)
Dieting also raises serious health concerns for many of the 29% of American adults and 59% of female adolescents who are attempting weight reduction. (65) Eating disorders carry the greatest risks. An estimated 0.9% of female Americans suffer from anorexia nervosa, which results in severe weight reduction and distorted body image. (66) Another 1.5% suffer from bulimia, which involves binging and purging, and 3.5% of women and 2% of men exhibit binge eating disorders. (67) Anorexia can result in organ compromise and heart and kidney failure; 90% of sufferers end up with bone loss. (68) Bulimia can lead to heart and gastrointestinal problems, and damage to the teeth, throat, and esophagus. (69) Binge eaters can suffer cardiovascular problems as well as an increased incidence of diabetes and gallbladder disease. (70) Treatment is costly and often ineffective or inaccessible, and many who lack adequate care have associated mental health difficulties. (71)
Concerns about appearance and eating disorders are often linked to depression, anxiety, or low self-esteem. (72) Anorexia has the highest rate of death among psychiatric disorders, approximately 10%, and a suicide rate fifty-seven times higher than for women of the same age in the general population. (73)
Many weight reduction techniques, whether or not associated with eating disorders, also carry risks. A recent New Yorker cartoon parodies the extent to which dieters are often prepared to go: an oarsman on a galley slave ship boasts to another: "I dropped twelve pounds the first week and kept it off!" (74) For some women, smoking is the functional equivalent. Three-quarters of surveyed female smokers are unwilling to gain more than five pounds after quitting; nearly half will not tolerate any increase. (75) Bariatric surgery, which involves reducing the stomach's capacity in order to control appetite, is one of the more effective procedures for the morbidly obese, but it poses significant risks of complications. (76) Moreover, patients sometimes replace compulsive eating with other addictive behavior such as smoking or alcohol abuse. (77) Yo-yo dieting, the pattern of losing and regaining weight, is by far the most common experience of dieters, and a growing body of evidence suggests that it may impose even more risks than remaining moderately overweight. Such weight cycling is linked to clogged arteries, loss in bone density, congestive heart failure, and other serious health problems. (78) Over fifteen studies associate yoyo dieting with increased rates of mortality. (79) Many "miracle" diet drugs like Olestra and fen-phen also have created more problems than solutions. (80)
Indeed, from a health perspective, the current obsession with weight is misdirected. Except at extreme levels, body mass is less important than fitness in preventing disease and prolonging life. (81) Some recent research finds that moderately overweight individuals have the lowest mortality rates of any weight group; thin individuals who match cultural ideals have the highest rates. (82) Low body weight compromises reproductive and work capacity, and predicts a greater frequency of sickness. (83)
This is not to deny the health benefits in preventing obesity, a condition now shared by almost a third of Americans. (84) Nor is it to undervalue the importance of weight reduction for individuals with certain conditions such as hypertension, osteoarthritis, and diabetes. (85) But it is to suggest that our culture would be healthier if the focus were less on "thunder thighs" and more on nutrition and fitness.
II. THE INJUSTICE OF DISCRIMINATION
The costs and disadvantages associated with appearance raise two fundamental questions. Are any of these consequences unjust? If so, do they call for some legal remedy or other societal response? In considering these questions, it often makes sense to consider both the nature of the characteristic and the context of discrimination. As a general matter, our concern is likely to be greatest with bias in the public sphere that is based on factors that are at least partly beyond an individual's control and that are not critical to performance.
In general, American law prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, sex, ethnicity, religion, age, and disability, but not appearance. Only one state and six cities or counties prohibit some form of appearance discrimination. (86) In the rest of the United States, such bias is unlawful only if it is linked with characteristics that other antidiscrimination laws cover, such as race, sex, or disability. So, for example, weight and grooming standards are impermissible if they impose unreasonable, disproportionate burdens on only one sex. (87) Disability law prohibits weight discrimination in a very limited number of cases involving extreme obesity that impairs normal functioning. (88) For the most part, however, bias based on appearance is lawful in the United States, and the same is true in other nations. (89) Whether it should be is a question demanding closer scrutiny.
A. The Rationale for Banning Discrimination Based on Appearance
1. Equal opportunity: bias, stereotypes, and stigma
The clearest argument for banning discrimination based on appearance is that it offends principles of equal opportunity and individual dignity. Many of the costs associated with appearance are the product of widespread prejudice. Beginning at early ages, children develop an aversion to individuals who are overweight or unattractive, and those individuals are teased, ridiculed, and ostracized. (90) Such disadvantages persist throughout the life cycle.
Educational and employment settings reveal frequent examples of bias. A National Education Association report on size discrimination found that for overweight students, the "school experience is one of ongoing prejudice, unnoticed discrimination, and almost constant harassment." (91) The lower grades and college enrollments of obese female students are at least partly attributable to stigmatization and the resulting disengagement and loss of self-esteem. (92) In several surveys, close to 90% of obese individuals reported humiliating comments from friends, family, or coworkers. (93) Obesity carries as much stigma as AIDS, drug addiction, and criminal behavior. (94) Overweight workers lose job opportunities and endure offensive jokes, cartoons, and nicknames. (95) In controlled experiments, these individuals are seen as less desirable colleagues and supervisors, and stereotyped as lazy, sloppy, and lacking in competence, self-discipline, and emotional stability. (96) Employers express concern about customer, client, and coworker responses to overweight employees; particularly for upper-level positions, fat is a "sure-fire career-killer. If you can't control your own contours, goes the logic, how can you control a budget and staff?." (97)
Although about two-thirds of surveyed Americans believe that people are fat because they lack self-control, experts generally agree that weight is not simply a matter of willpower. (98) Weight reflects a complex interaction of physiological, psychological, socioeconomic, and cultural factors. (99) Genetically determined set-points work to keep bodies within a predetermined range; furthermore, when dieters reduce their caloric intake and increase their exercise, their metabolism slows down to compensate and makes any weight loss difficult to sustain. (100) The problems are compounded by sedentary occupations and "toxic environments" that lack recreational opportunities and encourage unhealthy food choices. (101)
A related and equally unfounded assumption is that the stigma associated with being overweight serves a legitimate function by shaming individuals into shedding unhealthy pounds. In fact, such bias is counterproductive; around 80% of those enrolled in weight loss programs respond to stigma by eating more or giving up their diets. (102)
Discrimination on the basis of these stereotypes carries both individual and social costs. It undermines self-esteem, diminishes job aspirations, and compromises merit principles. As Princeton political philosopher Anthony Appiah notes, "[e]quality as a social ideal is a matter of not taking irrelevant distinctions into account." (103) In many contexts, appearance bears no relationship to competence, and discrimination on that basis undermines values of both efficiency and equity. (104) Philosopher Michael Walzer's concept of spheres of justice illustrates the point. (105) Characteristics like attractiveness that may justify decisions in one sphere, such as intimate personal relationships, are unjust when they spill over to other spheres, such as education or employment. An attorney for an obese man denied a job as a fast food cook made exactly that claim: "The only thing that should matter to McDonald's ... [is] how he cooks, not how he looks." (106) Advocates of a Santa Cruz, California ordinance banning appearance discrimination similarly argued that it would force employers to judge workers "on the basis of real criteria," namely, "their ability to perform the job." (107) "What this ordinance is really saying, one city council member explained, is hire the best-qualified person." (108)
Of course, as subsequent discussion notes, whether attractiveness is a relevant qualification is sometimes subject to debate. (109) But in many contexts, discrimination based on appearance, like other forms of bias, rests on inaccurate stereotypes. Assumptions that overweight individuals are lazy, undisciplined, or unfit are a case in point. In one all-too-typical example, an obese woman failed to receive a job as an airport bus driver because a company doctor concluded that her weight would prevent her from effectively protecting passengers in an accident. (110) The doctor subsequently acknowledged that the woman had no health problems and that he had performed no agility tests; he simply assumed that she was unfit because he had watched her "waddling down the hall" to her exam. (111) What makes such stereotypes objectionable is not only that they reflect overbroad or inaccurate generalizations; it is also that they can be self-perpetuating. Denying obese women jobs as bus drivers also denies them opportunities to challenge the assumptions of incompetence on which such bias rests.
In short, discrimination based on appearance unfairly stigmatizes individuals based on factors that often are at least partly beyond their control. (112) That stigma imposes substantial financial and psychological costs, undermines individuals' self-esteem, and often pressures them into the burdensome and unsafe practices described earlier.
2. Subordination: compounding inequalities based on class, race, ethnicity, gender, disability, and sexual orientation
A second reason for prohibiting discrimination based on appearance is that it reinforces group disadvantages. As constitutional scholars including Cass Sunstein and J.M. Balkin have argued, practices that systematically stigmatize and subordinate groups prevent members from developing their full capacities. (113) The perpetuation of hierarchies also jeopardizes perceptions of fairness and legitimacy on which well-functioning democracies depend. (114) Like many other forms of discrimination, prejudice based on appearance compounds the disadvantages of already disadvantaged groups, particularly those based on class, gender, race, ethnicity, disability, and sexual orientation.
In The Case Against Perfection, Harvard philosopher Michael Sandel notes that one byproduct of the contemporary fixation on physical attractiveness is the exacerbation of economic inequality. (115) Appearance both reflects and reinforces class privilege. Prevailing beauty standards advantage individuals with the time and money to invest in their appearance. Fashion, makeup, health clubs, weight-loss products, and cosmetic procedures all come at a cost. Yet for many consumers, these are not "luxury goods." In a culture where appearance is so often linked to status and self-esteem, low-income individuals pay a substantial psychological price when they cannot afford to meet conventional standards.
Discrimination based on obesity is particularly problematic from a class standpoint. As one expert puts it, there is some "evidence that poverty is fattening," and an even "stronger case ... [that] fatness is impoverishing." (116) Many urban and rural poor people live in food deserts--areas with no readily accessible grocery stores that sell fresh fruits and vegetables. (117) These areas also tend to lack public recreational facilities and schools with adequate physical education. (118) The bias that overweight individuals face then compromises their educational and employment opportunities. Those living below the poverty line are nearly 15% more likely to be obese than the general population. (119)
Minorities also experience disproportionate obesity rates, with their corresponding disadvantages, as well...
|
