Ugliness as a disability?

A bit of an oldie, but interesting nonetheless: Economist Daniel S. Hamermesh, author of Beauty Pays, makes the argument in an Op-Ed for the New York Times that ugliness should be considered as a form of disability, with compensation available to the very ugliest people of society.  He makes the case that being ugly results in significant social impairment; that is, the ugliest people tend to make less money and be less successful due, primarily, to their looks. As a result, people should either be compensated, or legislation should be put in place which, in effect, would represent affirmative action for the ugliest people of society.

Economic arguments for protecting the ugly are as strong as those for protecting some groups currently covered by legislation. So why not go ahead and expand protection to the looks-challenged? There’s one legitimate concern. With increasingly tight limits on government resources, expanding rights to yet another protected group would reduce protection for groups that have commanded our legislative and other attention for over 50 years.

Is ugliness really a disability? If it is, what does this mean about the concept “disability”? Is it primarily a social construction — a result of social stigma?

Defining Autism

The New York Times recently published an article on the medical debate over the definition of autism — whether it has been defined too loosely, and needs to be narrowed. The article  explores some of the potential consequences that the outcome of this debate could have, and looks to the anger and fear that has been generated amongst many parents with children currently defined as autistic. Amy Harmon writes,

A study reported on Thursday found that proposed revisions to theAmerican Psychiatric Association’s definition would exclude about three-quarters of those now diagnosed with milder forms of autism called Asperger syndrome or “pervasive developmental disorder, not otherwise specified,” also known as P.D.D.-N.O.S. These are people who have difficulties with social interaction but do not share the most severe impairments of children with classic autism.

Some parents fear that children deemed “on the edge” of autism will have their treatment options limited with the proposed narrowing of the definition. In contrast, some parents with severely autistic children support narrowing the definition.

“Everyone on the spectrum benefits when money and services available are applied more specifically and appropriately to the individual needs of each person affected,” said Mark L. Olson, of Henderson, Nev., whose daughter, 16, does not speak. Mr. Olson has argued on hisblog that those with more severe needs have been overshadowed by people with the Asperger diagnosis, who have typical intelligence and language development.

The article goes on to discuss the implications that labelling a child with ‘autism’ has on that child. On the one hand, it often opens up the opportunity for treatment, while on the other, the child is deemed abnormal.

Tomorrow’s Children

Some might be interested in the film Tomorrow’s Children (called ‘The Unborn’ in Britain) which was released in 1934, and can be downloaded free of charge at the Internet Archive. It offers a commentary on the American Eugenics movement prior to the horrors of Nazi eugenic policy which was introduced later in the decade. IMDB provides a brief synopsis:

A young woman wishes to marry her boyfriend and raise a family, but because her own family has been deemed “defective” by the state health authorities–her parents are lazy alcoholics who continue to have children, and her siblings(brothers here) are crippled, have mental problems or are jailed–she is ordered by a court to undergo sterilization so that her family’s “defective genes” won’t be passed on to any more children. Her boyfriend and a kindly priest desperately search for a way to stop the forced sterilization before it’s too late.

Has anyone had a chance to see this movie? Also, thanks to Velvet Martin for the heads up.

Non-consenting human subjects: victims of eugenics?

Non-Consenting Adults