Presidential Beauty Contest

 http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2012/10/03/debate_1003_preexisting_480x360.jpg

Whenever I've had a formal presentation in class, I've always been asked to dress nicely. I can still hear my numerous teachers mentioning "A suit and tie for men...dress or blouse and dress pants for ladies" before every presentation I'd give.

Why do teachers want students to dress up for a speech or presentation? The answer is simple. Individuals look more put together, sophisticated and professional when they are dressed up, which instinctively sets the mood for the rest of the presentation.

Needless to say, this custom resonates far beyond the classroom. For the past couple weeks, there have been numerous debates, conferences and speeches being made for this Election season. Most notable are the heated Presidential Debates between President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney. If you're like me, always having an invisible microscope out to examine the details not usually considered, maybe you've considered the way these candidates looked.

The photo above is of the two candidates, Romney and Obama (respectively), at the first Presidential Debate. What's there to notice? First of all, the suits. Obama opted for a navy blue suit, while Romney chose a classic black suit. The President went with a blue tie and American flag lapel pin, while the Governor selected a red striped tie and an American flag pin as well. What are the candidates trying to have their style choices say about them? Elizabeth Wellington, a writer for philly.com, explained her answer to this question by saying that "both men have to look compassionate, yet strong. Romney must be careful not to look too much like a wealthy one-percenter, while President Obama can't come across as too forceful, yet he must be presidential" (Wellington). 
For the rest of Wellington's article, click here. 

With what Wellington said, the candidates also want their appearance to evoke emotions with their appearance. A great way to do this is by picking a great tie. I'm not kidding you. Ties, out of all the other pieces that make up a typical male's formal outfit, have the most color flexibility. That being said, each potential color evokes a different emotion, so the color of a candidate's tie can say a lot about them. 

For the first debate, Obama selected a blue tie. Firstly, blue is the color of the Democratic Party, which easily signals to spectators "I'm the democratic candidate". Also, blue is considered a calming color. According to the basic representation of colors, determined by 1940's Swiss psychotherapist Max Lüscher, the color blue evokes feelings of commitment, dependability and inspiration. (For more on the emotions evoked by colors, click here.)

Romney, who chose the Republican Party's color, red, also likely thought about evoking specific emotions. The color red is associated with feelings of stimulation: passion, strength, energy and enthusiasm. Romney, often considered as the "underdog" or "challenger" in the election, chose well in my opinion with the red tie. He wanted to get noticed, attract attention and seem strong. A red tie clearly evokes those emotions more than a blue tie. The blue tie, however, suited Obama's demeanor better, who, as the current president, wanted to reassure Americans that he has been a good, dependable President and wishes to continue to inspire Americans. 

To top this off, studies have shown that each party favors a different look for their candidates. An article from livescience.com found that "'Republicans tend to do better when they look like a high-school quarterback or a CEO- square jaw, cropped hair'.... Democrats did better when they had the look of a college professor'" (Bryner).

The same source also did an experiment where participants looked at photos of opposing congressional candidates and were asked to choose which candidate appeared more competent, more intelligent, more likable and more trustworthy.

The article noted that "candidates who were labeled as more competent and more trustworthy were more often identified as Republican, while Democrats were more often linked with traits of likability and intelligence" (Bryner).
For the rest of this article, click right here!

So is it just one large coincidence or do candidates really spend more time on their appearance than the average individual expects? I think it's hard to write this one off as just a fluke. Appearance is clearly an important factor in how others perceive an individual, and just like my experiences of dressing up before giving a class speech, it's highly unlikely that our fellow presidential candidates don't give some concrete thought into how exactly they look when they're on our TV screens. After all, even the seemingly tiny details could make a huge difference when it comes time to vote.

Are employers looking at your resumé or at YOU?

Here's a question I've been pondering:

Does appearance really affect an individual's chance of scoring the job they want? 

I mean, I doubt that I'm the only one who has thought about this. Technically speaking, appearance isn't supposed to be a factor in the workplace. But employers are humans and don't all humans have a bias? Don't all employers have a preference or a plan to fill their workplace up with a specific type of people? Whether it's denying someone because they don't bring aesthetic diversity to the company or for just looking too rough, too artistic, or too preppy...it's hard to accept the idea that employers are so well trained that they are focusing 100% on the resumé and 0% on the looks. 

It's hard to deny that career-related stereotypes exist and it doesn't take more than a quick google image search to confirm this. 

What image pops in your head when you think about an aerobics instructor? Or a nurse?

http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/aerobics(1).jpg

http://nursejobsvancouver.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/nurse_jobs_vancouver.jpg

After doing a quick scan of what images I saw when I searched "fitness instructor" and "nurse", the results looked a lot like these two photos. Aerobics instructors were predominately women who were very skinny, wearing classic yoga gear or a more revealing sports bra/shorts ensemble, and seemingly young and "fresh". The photos for nurses were almost all of women, all wearing scrubs, smiling, hair pulled back cleanly and neatly, and the stethoscope naturally in view. 

Does Google Images answer all of my questions? Definitely not, however it really gets at what sorts of strong stereotypes we as humans have for different jobs and professions. That being said, because there are so many stereotypes in the workplace, it's understandable to claim that certain individuals do face discrimination in certain fields. 

Let's go back to the fitness instructor example. What sorts of people could be disadvantaged by the aesthetic stereotypes in this field? 

Take a look at this story: 

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/educate/college/business/articles/20050724.htm

Here is the classic example of job discrimination based on appearance. This prospective employee, Portnick, could have been the most dedicated employee Jazzercise had ever had. She might have had a stunning resume, filled with dozens upon dozens of experiences and qualifications making her fit for the job. But she was turned down just because she didn't "appear fit". I sometimes feel that people assume this sort of discrimination only goes on in very obviously aesthetically-based fields like modeling, for example. Portnick's story shows, however, that appearance may matter more to employers in all sorts of fields than many of us expect. 

Take a look at this quote from the article:

"In a recent analysis, the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis reviewed various economic studies to find possible links between looks and wages. The study's conclusion: A worker with below-average looks tended to earn significantly less -- on average 9% less -- per hour than an above-average-looking employee. And those with above-average looks tended to earn 5% more than their average-looking colleagues.

'If someone looks like Brad Pitt or Julia Roberts, and society values that, that attribute is built into wages," says Michael Owyang, an economist who worked on the analysis'."

Unbelievable, right? Not only does appearance affect the likelihood that an individual will get the job but it also affects how much money that individual will be making. 

So is it inevitable? Will certain people merely be destined to receive lower wages than others? Should Portnick accept that she simply does not fit the mold and pursue something else? Each individual will have a unique answer to each of those questions. From my perspective though, discrimination based on appearance is superficial and hollow. Though someone may not look fit for a certain position or job, that doesn't mean they aren't capable of doing it or potentially able to redefine how the job is done. I know it sounds cliché, but I'm a firm believer that heart and passion are what stands out stronger than the way someone looks. But that's my take on it.

All that glitters isn't gold.

~Shakespeare, Tolkien

Agree? Disagree?

The Short One

I vividly remember my middle school days, particularly Picture Day. Picture Day was the one day, every year, where I would dress in my best clothes, straighten my hair to look the best it could possibly look, give my biggest smile and....stand in the back of the line. Every. Year.

Yes, I'm the short one. The shortest one. 5'1 to be exact. That was my classification for years on end. I was the one people mistook for a younger kid, the human post taller kids would lean on, the person who needed help reaching a book on the top shelf. And every year, I was the one who would instinctively go to the back of the line when my class took our yearly group picture. It became standard protocol: go to the end of the line and make semi-awkward conversation with the same boy who always stood in front of me. Being short was my signature. It defined me, in one way or the other, and I'll never forget it.

Now a senior in high school, I may not be the human post anymore, but I still hold that my height is my trademark. Doesn't everyone have their trademark look? Something about their appearance that defines them? Blonde hair, long legs, brown eyes, short pixie haircut, combat boots. Aren't we judged by the way we look? Doesn't our appearance affect aspects of our life?

"Diversity" by Karen Merry

As the short one, I feel as if appearance affects everyday life in more ways than one would expect. From affecting a prospective voter's perception of presidential candidates, to giving a reader a very specific and telling description of a character, to defining a culture or affecting your chances of getting a job—appearance and aesthetics hold value in many aspects of society. These are the ideas and situations I want to explore in detail.

Who knows? Maybe we do judge books by their covers. 

Nicole

Merry, Karen. "Diversity." Fine Art America. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 Oct. 2012. <http://fineartamerica.com/featured/diversity-karen-merry.html>.