What is often forgotten in endless discussions about how beautiful people get all the breaks is that a very large part of attractiveness is how you present yourself. Indeed there is natural beauty that some are more blessed with than others. However, in the waking world I have found that most people who complain about people getting better deals in life because they are good looking are those who put absolutely no care or effort into their appearance.
There are very few amongst us who are truly repulsive in a physical appearance kind of way. What is very obvious at times is that people focus on their negatives. What is missed is the opportunity to accentuate the positive. What is it about you that people you have known have found attractive about you? I once knew a woman with hauntingly beautiful deep eyes and delicately gorgeous hands who never stopped talking about her lack of "boobs." She never paid attention to what people were telling her. To her, the small chest made her unattractive to men and that was what she focused on.
Physical beauty is not everything. However, to brush it off as unimportant defies the nature of living amongst a collective reality. The intelligent person avoids walking around making stupid, nonsensical comments to people. The emotionally strong, helpful person who is always giving a helping hand or inspiration to others, avoids insulting people or kicking them in the shins. Why hide or subvert your physical attractiveness and complain about those who do not?
To be discriminated against because you went to a job interview and were more qualified but they gave the job to a woman with a low-cut blouse and a short skirt is one thing. Is that really discrimination by attractiveness? No, it is discrimination via the interviewer's libido. Sexual seductiveness is not the same as physical attractiveness. To discriminate based on physical attractiveness is something else, if we read the words literally.
At a place of employment I was once on the payroll of, there was a problem. The previous manager had hired far too many people to effectively run the operation. A new manager came in with a mandate. The staff had to be cut by 70%. That was a large number of people that had to be let go, and they did not want to start lay-offs. You see, some of the newer hires were far more valuable than some of the veterans. The manager had a high powered rifle and instructions to target the less desirable employees for termination. She would do this over several months as she identified those she wanted to keep and those she wanted to let go.
Very strange things began to happen. Some of the first people targeted for termination were the more attractive women in the office. Were they less competent than other employees? Some, but certainly not across the board. Fault was being found in everything people were doing and it was like a roulette wheel. Did a female manager coming in and taking over for a male manager somehow relate to the hit list of attractive women? Such things cannot be proved, but some saw the new manager as being resentful of the attention received by these women from their male co-workers. She had to release 70% of the staff, and the choices were left up to her. The first round of terminations was made up of the incompetent boobs and attractive women. Still, she had not trimmed the staff enough to placate the corporate office.
Those who remained were scrutinized. Those who maintained a rebel attitude and did not buy into the new manager's approach to the program were let go. What remained were mostly loyal and hardworking employees (and myself). She had to let go two more people and the task was difficult. There were no attendance or performance problems to focus on. Those people had already been dismissed. The last two terminations were men. The distinction between them and their co-workers was minimal, except on one level. They were both exceedingly unattractive.
The first was an older gentleman who wore clothes that had been in his closet since the 1970s. He radiated horrific body odor and the evidence showed that he was unfamiliar with the value of the toothbrush. His production was up to par with those who worked in his department and he showed a dedication to his job. He was offered a severance package and released. The second was a tall, lumbering workaholic who came to work early every day and stayed late without charging the company for overtime. His penchant for working off the clock was stated as the reason for his termination, due to labor laws and company policy. However, he also came to work right out of bed, feeling that showers were best taken at night rather than in the morning. His matted hair and the constant bags under his eyes made him look like the walking dead.
A female manager takes over. Attractive women and unattractive men are let go. Was there discrimination by attractiveness happening at this job site? The question is rhetorical.