I can't remember which thread I put it in but at least a week or so ago there was an article about a "scientific study" which found Right wingers are better looking than Left wingers.
Are some Lefties consumed by the politics of envy because they're no oil paintings, asks DOMINIC LAWSON
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... tings.html
Apparently, there is an ugly truth about socialism. Literally. Last week, the American journal Politics and the Life Sciences published a paper claiming to have established a clear link between how good-looking we are and our political outlook.
According to its lead author, Professor Rolfe Peterson, the more attractive you are, the more you are likely to be on the Right. The unfortunate corollary is that the ... er ... plainer you are, the more likely you are to be on the Left.
I won’t burden readers too much with the methodology of the surveys on which Professor Peterson based his conclusions, except to say that it involved studying the photos of people in high-school yearbooks, rating them for attractiveness, and then finding out their political views.
And in this American study the good-lookers were disproportionately likely to identify with what those behind the survey defined as Right-wing opinions.
On one interpretation of the survey, being good-looking means you have a more attractive personality, too. Or, as Peterson put it: ‘Attractive children have been shown to experience warmer treatment from their parents as well as strangers. Over a lifetime, these patterns of treatment appear to have a pronounced effect on the personality traits more attractive individuals exhibit, appearing to be more confident, extroverted, happier and heathier as they reached adulthood.’
But Peterson’s hypothesis is actually a criticism of such happy, extrovert, handsome people: their own life experiences make them less empathetic with those less favoured, ‘having not faced the challenges of other citizens’.
Perhaps we should dismiss this as just another example of dodgy social science designed to trigger newspaper headlines. Attractiveness is a highly subjective attribute: and many people who might appear beautiful to the outside world may be riven by personal insecurities and deeply unhappy.
On the other hand, perhaps Professor Peterson (of Susquehanna University, no less) is on to something. George Orwell, the greatest British observational journalist of the last century, would certainly have thought so. A socialist himself, Orwell was greatly pained by what he saw as the wilfully unappealing appearance of so many of his fellow Left-wingers.
In terms which would nowadays be almost unpublishable, he felt this particularly about the female activists of the British Left. To some extent this might have been misogyny on his part, or what we would today call ‘sexism’. But there was also a good political reason for Orwell’s concern: he felt if such activists paid more attention to their dress and appearance, they would be more likely to win the support of the British working man.
But Orwell did not apply this criticism only to female Left-wing campaigners. Far from it, as this passage from The Road To Wigan Pier, published in 1937, makes comically clear: ‘One day this summer I was riding through Letchworth when the bus stopped and two dreadful-looking old men got on to it. They were both about 60, both very short, pink and chubby, and both hatless. One of them was obscenely bald, the other had long grey hair bobbed in the Lloyd George style. They were dressed in pistachio-coloured shirts and khaki shorts into which their huge bottoms were crammed so tightly that you could study every dimple.
‘Their appearance created a mild stir of horror on top of the bus. The man next to me, a commercial traveller I should say, glanced at me, at them, and back again to me, and murmured “Socialists” … He was probably right — the Independent Labour Party were holding their summer school at Letchworth.’
When, elsewhere in The Road To Wigan Pier, Orwell bemoans ‘that dreary tribe of high-minded women and sandal-wearers and bearded fruit-juice drinkers who come flocking toward the smell of “progress” like bluebottles to a dead cat’, the modern reader can immediately identify the figure of Jeremy Corbyn as the living embodiment of the sort of socialist Orwell feared would repel the British voter on aesthetic grounds alone.
But there remains, in parts of the Left, a deep distaste for conventional ideas of attractiveness. This is perhaps allied to the belief that they are designed purely to appeal to male ideas of beauty. To a great extent, that is true. Men are much more likely to give a job to a woman who is elegant, which might well be unfair to another no less qualified female applicant for the position, but who happened to tip the scales at twice the weight of her rival.
The same, however, works the other way around between men and women — and in politics, too. For example, Margaret Thatcher had a weakness for tall, trim, good-looking men — perhaps the most notable of such men she rapidly promoted was the late Cecil Parkinson. And the first thing she said to my father, Nigel Lawson, when she appointed him Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1983, was that he should get his hair cut. Still, at least she didn’t demand that he go on a diet.
As I am neither good-looking nor ill-favoured by nature, and of exactly average height (5ft 10in), I regard myself as dispassionate in such matters. And from that position of neutral referee, I observe that while it’s true that the most naturally beautiful benefit from their chance inheritance, it is equally true that such people are also subject to nasty resentment from those less fortunate (especially, though not only, by women against other women).
This may be nothing more than sexual rivalry, but there is a parallel with politics. Many on the Left claim to be motivated purely by their love for the least fortunate in society. But, actually, their principal driving force is a visceral hatred for those who have got the most (regardless of whether those possessions were earned by hard work or not).
This link between ‘undeserved wealth’ and beauty was made by one of the Left’s most prolific polemicists, Will Hutton, in his 2010 book, Them And Us: Changing Britain — Why We Need A Fair Society. Hutton wrote: ‘In what sense is it remotely fair to talk about due rewards for discretionary effort when so much of society’s rewards fall to people who had the luck to be born with a particular talent, skill or beauty?’
On this analysis, supermodels should pay super-tax because they were simply lucky to have had the genetic inheritance which made them worth millions on the catwalk. Actually, such women punish themselves with horrific diets, work extremely hard and are in ruthless competition with a seemingly endless supply of younger models. But Hutton’s critique sees them only as benefiting unfairly from genetic inheritance (and his belief that you can be ‘born with a skill’ is bunk).
Novelists have anticipated where such political ideas might lead. In his 1961 short story Harrison Bergeron, Kurt Vonnegut described a society which had taken concerns about unfairness to a logical conclusion: the 211th, 212th and 213th amendments to the U.S. Constitution demand that no American shall be made to feel inferior to another.
The U.S. Handicapper-General, Diana Moon-Glampers, has the job of deciding the various impediments which must be imposed on the most ‘unfairly’ intelligent or beautiful, in order to comply with the notions of equality in the Constitution.
The year before Vonnegut’s tale, an even darker dystopia on the same theme was produced by the British author L.P. Hartley. His novel Facial Justice was based on the idea that in a society in which everything appeared to have been done to produce equality, envy remains as the sole cause of social friction.
Hartley conjured up a horrifying institution called ‘The Equalisation (Faces) Centre’. Its surgeons addressed with scalpels the resentment the public continued to feel towards those they felt to have been unduly rewarded by good fortune.
Both those books might be described as libertarian satires on the Left’s dislike for any sort of innate advantage, even in appearance. But Orwell was a socialist. And still his point was: why can’t the Left scrub up well? Eighty years on, his question remains unanswered.
stormofsteel, LONDON, United Kingdom, 1 hour ago
very true, but basically they are a bunch of raving loonies who hate the british way of life...
Minor1018, Sheffield, United Kingdom, 1 hour ago
The majority of the extreme left including momentum are mainly single cell beings who are knuckle dragging simpletons who want everything for nothing by taxing and stealing from those who work hard to earn a crust
Brian in France, Gillingham., United Kingdom, 1 hour ago
The only "Lefties" I see are those protesters on the TV or press. They do look & sound like the dregs of the earth.
Katieconker, Hornchurch Essex, United Kingdom, 1 hour ago
Lefties are either young people who do not remember the seventies, poor people who think they will be better off or rich people who are possibly luvvies who feel guilty because they have made a fortune for doing practically nothing. Anyone with something to protect or earn a decent wage are far more likely to vote Tory because they are the ones who would have to fund Labour¿s overspending.
Rogue Johnny, Manchester, United Kingdom, 1 hour ago
Lefties are always miserable and banging on about victim groups, 'communities', and hating people who don't agree with them. People on the right enjoy life and like a good laugh.
Chief Angry Bear, Aberdeen, 1 hour ago
Thornberry and Abbott, could there be any better proof for this theory?