Ok, before you read what I'm about to write, nay copy, let me say this: Don't kill the messenger! I'm merely going to quote a passage from a book I'm reading. Got it? These aren't MY thoughts or observations, this is science.
Presumably.
I mean, I'm assuming this woman did her research, and there are all sorts of notes and end notes in the back of the book that would indicate as much. The reference pages go on for sixty-three pages and she mentioned being a Harvard professor. Harvard professors wouldn't get published if they hadn't done their research, right? Sure, sure...she's probably always in "publish or perish mode" but those Ph.D. candidates have to earn their keep some way and what better way than to dig up obscure studies about the beautiful people?
Say you: You're procrastinating
Say me: Spot on. Gold star.
So the book is called Survival of the Prettiest: The Science of Beauty by Nancy Etcoff. Cliff 
notes? If you're a (cute) infant OR a beautiful female between the ages of say, oh, fourteen and twenty-five, you've got it made. The rest of us are pretty well sunk. Well, that's not quite accurate. Men who are over six feet tall and make lots of money are not sunk. Male peacocks do all right as well.
But that's not what I found to be social-work-blog worthy. It was THIS passage that got me out from under the cozy covers, into the depths of the dark house in search for a writing implement so I could underline it, find it again with limited effort, and offer it to you (page 36):
When abused children under court protection were studied in California and Massachusettes, it turned out a dispproportionate number of them were unattractive. This wasn't because they were badly groomed or bore unhappier facial expressions than other children. Rather, abused kids had head and face proportions that made them look less infantile and cute. Such children may be more likely to suffer abuse because their faces do not elicit the automatic reaction of protection and care that more infantile faces do.
(Emphasis mine.)
I know. I know. It's awful. There's more:
These children may also be perceived as more capable than they are and may be subject to unrealistic expectations because of their older appearance. There is evidence that abusing parents often do have unrealistic expectations of their children...
Now, before you get all social worky on me and rant and rave about the complete injustice of this (duh), put on your anthropological hat and think about this "protection" theory.
It sorta makes sense.
Say you: Are you kidding me?
Say me: Let me finish!
The author goes on the explain that way back when, mothers didn't have the resources we do now and therefore were less likely to become attached to at-risk children because they simply weren't likely to survive. She had herself and other children to consider--she couldn't expend the emotional energy on a unhealthy babe only to be burned in the end. Unhealthy babies tend to not have those adorable qualities that Gerber babies do, i.e., chubby cheeks, big eyes, big heads, small noses, and fat, squeezable extremities. Despite the fact that contemporary mothers will likely never have to make such an agonizing decision as to withhold love because baby may die, the argument is that they are none-the-less fighting some serious ancient brain reactions to sickly children.
We all know the typical family dynamics associated with abused kids: poverty, substance abuse, domestic violence, mental illness, or some combination therein. The author is merely throwing another iron in the fire: that a child is at risk based on his appearance.
Is having an unattractive child an excuse to abuse her? Of course not. Besides, there's an argument to made for saving the abuse until he's much older and really deserves it: taking the car without permission, wrecking said car, turning your home into headquarters for his new cannabis business, running away to be a groupie for a rock band...Think, though, about the DHS kids with whom you worked. How many were in custody because of a serious medical condition that parents weren't managing? Because they were born positive for cocaine? Because they were premature and not being properly cared for at home? Because they were FAS? Or developmentally disabled? Or Down's Syndrome? Or just plain malnourished? In most of these situations, these kids are not necessarily going to be conventionally "attractive".
It's sobering. ->
Read the complete post at http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/blogspot/tXCM/~3/402725780/beautiful-people.html
Posted
25 Sep 2008 6:28 AM
by
Trench Warfare
| Report Abuse