It's self-evident that it's a dialectic: parents mistreat ugly kids, who then become uglier, which encourages parents to mistreat them more -- forming a vicious circle with no beginning and no end, though eventually the ugliest kid gets selected President by the Supreme Court.
On 5/3/05, Dan Scanlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Not so much "Ugly is as ugly does" but "Ugly is as ugly gets done to"? > > Dan Scanlan > > > On May 3, 2005, at 3:58 PM, tom walker wrote: > > > Maybe it's not so much that the ugly kids are > > mistreated as that the mistreated ones get uglier. > > > > the Sandwichman > > > > > > --- Carl Remick wrote: > >> May 3, 2005 > >> > >> Ugly Children May Get Parental Short Shrift > >> > >> By NICHOLAS BAKALAR > >> > >> Parents would certainly deny it, but Canadian > >> researchers have made a > >> startling assertion: parents take better care of > >> pretty children than they > >> do ugly ones. > >> > >> Researchers at the University of Alberta carefully > >> observed how parents > >> treated their children during trips to the > >> supermarket. They found that > >> physical attractiveness made a big difference. > >> > >> The researchers noted if the parents belted their > >> youngsters into the > >> grocery cart seat, how often the parents' attention > >> lapsed and the number of > >> times the children were allowed to engage in > >> potentially dangerous > >> activities like standing up in the shopping cart. > >> They also rated each > >> child's physical attractiveness on a 10-point scale. > >> > >> The findings, not yet published, were presented at > >> the Warren E. Kalbach > >> Population Conference in Edmonton, Alberta. > >> > >> When it came to buckling up, pretty and ugly > >> children were treated in > >> starkly different ways, with seat belt use > >> increasing in direct proportion > >> to attractiveness. When a woman was in charge, 4 > >> percent of the homeliest > >> children were strapped in compared with 13.3 percent > >> of the most attractive > >> children. The difference was even more acute when > >> fathers led the shopping > >> expedition - in those cases, none of the least > >> attractive children were > >> secured with seat belts, while 12.5 percent of the > >> prettiest children were. > >> ... > >> > >> Dr. W. Andrew Harrell, executive director of the > >> Population Research > >> Laboratory at the University of Alberta and the > >> leader of the research team, > >> sees an evolutionary reason for the findings: pretty > >> children, he says, > >> represent the best genetic legacy, and therefore > >> they get more care. ... > >> > >> > > <http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/03/health/03ugly.html?8hpib> > >> > >> Carl > >> > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca > > > > > > "I uke, therefore I am." > --Cool Hand Uke > http://www.coolhanduke.com > -- Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine
