Attractive people get better jobs, better pay, and better treatment. Lookism is basically the ugly sister of racism, sexism, and homophobia, yet hardly anyone fights it. Philosopher Heather Widdows here argues that shame is the reason. Being unattractive stings our own pride or has too much baggage to allow as to defend others, so we keep quiet. Until we move past this shame, lookism will continue to run rampant.

Whether we call it lookism, appearance discrimination, the halo effect, or pretty privilege, lookism is real. Good-looking people are more likely to be employed, earn more, are treated better by teachers and other professionals, and are thought to be kinder and more competent. But, although we’ve known this for decades, we’ve done little about it. Why is lookism ignored when other forms of discrimination are taken seriously in policy, practice, and everyday life? I consider three possible explanations. First, that it’s natural to treat good-looking people better; second, that appearance is trivial; and third, that shame stops us from recognizing lookism. I reject the first two, accept the third, and consider how to address it.

First, what exactly is lookism? Lookism, pretty privilege and the halo effect name the fact that attractive people get treated better than the unattractive. Lookism, like its sister terms sexism and racism, calls out unjust discrimination, not just different treatment. Just as it isn’t racism to test for sickle cell disease in black populations, it isn’t lookism to put height restrictions on jockeys, or weight restrictions on boxers.

___

Who is going to call out lookist behavior if you have to admit to being ugly?

___

Study after study shows that lookism is prevalent and impactful. Unattractive people are less likely to be selected for interview, less likely to be appointed to positions, and paid less. Famously, Daniel Hamermesh in his book Beauty Pays, identified “a beauty premium” and an “ugly penalty.” More recently, a large-scale study based on data from 119 669 UK Biobank participants found that tall men and slim women are paid more than their shorter and fatter peers. The headlines reported men getting £1600 a year for every 2.5 inches, women losing £1500 a year for every stone. In philosopher Andrew Mason’s words, lookism “in employment seems to be as pervasive as other forms of discrimination, including racial discrimination, and its effect on earnings seems to be just as pronounced.”

And it’s not just the workplace. Teachers treat attractive students better, think they are cleverer and have more friends. Good-looking criminals are less likely to be found guilty and are given lighter punishments. Remember #FreeLuigi, the campaign around the “hot assassin” Luigi Mangione who killed Brian Thompson, the CEO of UnitedHealthcare? Lookism is real, it happens all the time, and we’ve known this for decades. Why, when other forms of discrimination are taken seriously, do we ignore lookism?

One reason we ignore and accept lookism is thinking it is natural. Psychologist Nancy Etcoff makes this argument:

Our extreme sensitivity to beauty is hard-wired, that is, governed by circuits in our brain shaped by natural selection. We love to look at smooth skin, thick shiny hair, curved waists, and symmetrical bodies because in the course of evolution the people who notice these signals and desired their possessors had more reproductive success. We are their descendants.