Here's an article which may tickle you, though. Apparently, there is a need for positive discrimination in favour of ugly people.
[...] why not offer legal protections to the ugly, as we do with racial, ethnic and religious minorities, women and handicapped individuals?If you read the whole piece, there is a flaw in the author's reasoning. You see, he is talking from an American perspective about private sector industries.
In our own fair country, it's a positive boon if you can curdle milk with a smile ... the usual response is to put you in charge of a fake charity and hand you a six figure budget.
5 comments:
Weird, is it not, that 'positive' discrimination is ok,
whilst 'ordinary' discrimination is not! Would it be ok to advertise a job with the words, "Because of our religious beliefs, only Asian women wearing burkas need apply"?
... apply in person to the Spearmint Rhino, 160 Tottenham Court Rd, London.
WV tabilin, tantalisingly close
I've always thought that attractiveness was the big elephant in the room for the equality debate.
Are they planning to redistribute boyfriends and girlfriends?
why not beat everyone up at birth. Then we are all ugly, problem solved.
Why not, indeed? Why not offer legal protections to the ginger, the left-handed, the short-sighted, stammerers, the flat-footed, the very short, the very tall, and people with poor dress sense, while we're at it?
What the fuck happened to equality before the law?
Post a Comment