To not understand why In 2015 we still value women and men on looks more than brains

[Anotherkitkattoomany]

It upset me the other day when their was a thread about George Ezra appearance. We seem as a society to put looks fist and then brains second.

The colleague who sits next to me in the office reads the mail online. Nearly Every story is how celebs look.

Not only do people who have good looks suffer but those who don't do.
Also I fail to understand why the media only present the average pretty girl as unintelligent.

I used to think we got away from all this judging over looks. It to me seemed like something that would happen in the 50s and 60s.
Back then women were the ones who were more so judged but it seems to be almost 50:50 now.

Its really sad that in 2015 we are still like this.

Edit: I'm not saying brains are not valued, but we (our society) put looks first and every other quality second when looks should be an added bonus to a person.

Back then women were the ones who were more so judged but it seems to be almost 50:50 now.

Sounds like equality to me

Men? Hardly.

Is it equality or have both sexes been oppressed. It's how you look at things for example you could see page 3 as a women doing what she wants in the modern world or a women bringing her gender back. It's how you see things.

Ronald yes men just as much as women probably a bit less

On the other hand, why should someone lucky enough to be born with a good brain, be held in higher esteem than someone born with good looks, say, or someone lucky enough to be gifted at art, or music, or any other attribute?

I don't think we do value looks over brains.

I don't know anyone who is in a relationship with someone else, or who is friends with someone else purely because of their looks. As I don't know any models, I don't know anyone who is employed purely for their looks.

I agree that men are judged on looks as much as women are, but I really can't think of any real life examples I know of where looks are valued more than brains or personality.

Looks are valued over brains sadly. It's so easy to point out examples.

Because we have eyes... And frankly, I do not care about Brad Pitt or Tom Hardy's brain.

Point out some examples then, because people reading sleb twaddle in the daily mail doesn't really say anything.

I don't know, you can be the most academically brainy individual in your field, but you can be almost unemployable because you cannot communicate it effectively, or give it a practical application. So we do need other attributes in the workplace, and that can be a mixture of charm, good presentation, good communication skills, making others feel at their ease, knowing how to get the best out of people, etc.. Pure braininess on its own is rarely that sought after - that's why brilliant academics are mainly working as academics on reasonable but not astonishing salaries and not running their own multi million pound companies.

But most people aren't astonishingly good looking, so most people aren't employed for their looks anyway.

Reproduction.

Good looks at inextricably linked to good genes and health, apparently. And naturally we want the best mate possible as a potential parent to our offspring, so good looking people are favoured.

So you think men and women are judged equally on looks do you?

Okay, so when was the last time you saw a news programme presented by a craggy middle aged man, maybe getting a bit podgy around the middle? wearing a boring suit and a younger groomed to an inch or her life female co-presenter? I bet you've seen that presenting combo within the last week.

So when was the last time you saw a news programme presented by a middle age woman with grey hair, nondescript clothes and a bit of middle aged spread , with a twenty/thirty something male hotty as the co-presenter laughing at her shite jokes and generally fawning over her?

Never. In fact I think it does neither sex any favours.

No woman looking like Trevor MacDonald, David Dimbleby or Huw Edwards would have got a presenting gig (ie not matinee idol attractive and unambiguously middle aged looking) and kept it well into their 50s and 60s.

On the other hand, a man with a CV as slight as Natasha Kaplinsky or Kate Silverton would have got a presenting job on a national news broadcast in their very early 30s/late 20s.

I guess talented but not conventionally telegenic women get absolutely the worse of both sexist stereotypes.

In television which is a visual medium it isn't surprising, (although not right). You wouldn't see the same in other fields, (finance, medicine, research, catering, entrepreneurship, IT).

It also changes with age. We tend to notice looks more when we are all twenty something. When we are seventy five other factors are important so it isn't black and white.

PPs have given a few reasons though - and no it isn't the best way forward.

Is it 50:50??!!
I don't think so.

Tbh i don't think we should judge by brains either. Many brainy people arepiece of shite and many average brain people have a heart of gold andgood ideas so i prefer to judge only on the character.

Laquitar - I agree. Not everyone is bright. I'd like to think that we judge on a range of factors - some within our control, some less so.