Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

As frustrating as it may be, it is a fact of life that we all get judged on our appearance. Everyone is aware of this and this is why people worry about the way they look when, for example, they go for a job interview.

What we wear and the way we wear it sends a message to others and while for most of us it is subconscious, we all judge people by their appearance to a certain extent. The way someone dresses can tell us their view of themselves, how confident they are, and what social group they belong to.

I think the key is not to let appearance count for too much and to be willing to alter you perception of someone if you find that their appearance does not at all reflect who they are.

As much as we debate and attempt to be politically correct on the issue,  we all know that appearance does matter on some level. Whilst it may not be 'right', it is undeniable that society is more accepting of those that present themselves in a favorable manner.

Whilst we all must work with what God gave us, that blank canvas is a starting point from which we project many things - personality, individual style, personal pride. 

I do not agree with issue being taken to how attractive people are (we are the way we are, after all), but it is undeniable that one's presentation can be taken as a guide to how much pride they take in other areas of their life. 

People who live their lives in the public eye know that such scrutiny is part of the role they're taking on. We do live in a consumer society geared towards the attainment of youth, beauty and fitness. This is the yardstick against which our politicians will be measured. 

End of story. 

Appearance is important, especially in the work place. First impressions do matter, if you care about your appearance, it sends the message that you take pride in what you do as well.

If I were Kate Ellis I’d be flattered that not only do I have a great job and am intelligent, but I’m also considered attractive! Good on her!

However you don’t have to be the best looking person, and you certainly don’t need to alter appearance with plastic surgery or other extremes, but dressing neatly and looking after yourself is important. This is not only for women but men as well. How much banter did John Howard get for his bushy eye-brows! Often I was distracted by them rather than listening to what he was actually saying!

Well, Louise, I have to agree with you that appearance does matter in a more consumer driven society. It's all about the change of the ways people are judging others . There is no way that they can just pass the first impression, and go straight to look at your soul. It's just not happening.

Most importantly I think a good appearance does make a good first impression, which could have been very helpful sometimes. Especially for politicians, and I am referring to both women and men here. How does a politician expect the public to put huge amount of trust and vote for him/her without looking confident enough? And this doesn't just apply to public figures. There are certain jobs that do require appropriate appearances, usually in the case of being professional.  We don't want others to treat us any less because of that. And It's a very simple question to think about.  

All I am saying is we cannot judge other people purely on the basis of what they are wearing, but that is one important element to make your life more successful. Leaving a good impression works!

Jay, it seems the non threatening, user friendly or chubby cuddly Rudd was a response to the genetic monstrous intrusion of the Howard eyebrows.

But I, too, have grave doubts about Rudd. Anyone who stays back at work for even a moment after knock off time has my deepest suspicion.

I suspect Louise Easson has just discovered French post-structural philosophy, which has its origins at least partly in the insights of Barthes, who exposed the sophistication of the consumerist counter project and the role of the persuasion industry , in its employ of myth to hold the individual. Its the beginnings of the cultural critique of capitalism that also has its roots in Gramschi and the Frankfurt school.

The system adapted to the Marxist critique, thru the myth of cornucopia at the very time when the simplistic Stalinist failure became overt; when it became obvious that overt political repression would no longer work in the East any more than the pre world war 2 West or contemporary third world - the brave new way came thru technology and goodies.

Althusser and later Baudrillard expanded further ideas as to consumerism, media and belief and the feminists produced a definitive case history in their essentially collaborative study of female commodification and reification over two centuries; a diachronic analysis.

Then a whole heap of French post structuralists and German phenomonologists followed, trying to make sense of the last two centuries, up to the wedged "now" .

Although Marcuse, I think correctly, described current times as defined by the notion of the imperceptibly dumbing down "repressive tolerant", the post structuralists were more circumspect, guided on the basis of the philosophical theoretical hunch of the reality of the "permanent becoming".

The contradiction is since resolved in the grasping of the meaning of "globalisation", itself predicted by Lenin and exposed in the failure to translate revolution into reality thru neoliberalism,as the disastrous failure of Stalinism. The resultant synthesis was first expressed by Foucault, as to the "diffusity of power"

This is, that denial of closure inherent in reality in the current mode, which may allow us only the wiggle room at best, for subversion, transgression; survival. It's a dour reassessment of the possibility of immediate broad transformative change via older, perhaps simplistic, overly optimistic critiques and solutions, in the wake of the failures induced of the misreading of emerging reality- a reality check, if you like.

In the new scenario, a Pammy Anderson and Dolly Parton, with their system-mining (self) parodying located nonetheless in a conscious comprehension of reality and appreciation of the nature of the system, could be seen as a more sophisticated "disguise" response than that of an old style overt agitator who will only be ignored out of existence anyway (or finally liquidated if they become too persistent, as a "terrorist").

In a sense a Miss California, who actually "believes" it all; someone who actually is a "structure", ironically has become the (equivalent to) the superficial hairy sloganeer of the sixties - someone who has the appearance of insight, but none of its substance.

The cognitive landscape these become part of, remains complex, changing and problematic and can be better countered at the points of manifestation should the opportunity arise, according to the likes of Foucault. The exerting of a little patience has seen, in turn, the discrediting of Fascism, Stalinism and fascism disguised as neoliberalism (remember the reality of globalisation!). But power remains ubiquitous and diffuse. Like I said, a much more pessimistic reading.

So, as Fukuyama gloated, the way forward to a genuine transformation that includes appreciation and constructive use of resources, universalisation of consciousness and the "New Jerusalem", remains as problematic as ever. The icebergs will arrive before it does, you tend to fear.

We make quick judgements about others - based on appearance, race, gender, height, beauty, or any one of a hundred modifiable and unmodifiable features.

These quick judgements are often accurate, sometimes false. The question is, should we change those features that we can, in order to create a more favourable impression? Or is that lying, sailing under false colours? Should we to our own self be true?

I don't enjoy wearing ties, but in my last job, an expensive suit and tie meant it was easier to get things done. Ergo I was paid to wear an expensive suit.

Louise, the problem is that appearance has come to count for too much.

Sorry, can't link it, but go to Huffington Post and read some of the scathing comments about the current Miss California, a hardline social conservative who dislikes the deceptiveness of gays, but had a sly boob implant (bolt-ons) paid by the cretins running the pageant.

Now, why on earth do Miss California types, models and movie stars need all this junk (uglifying cosmetic surgery, botox, and plastic norks, let alone all the conventional gunk) when they are already born with the best that nature can endow them with?

And I suppose I can include Viagra for guys on the list of pathetics.

The expense, in a world of starving and sick people screaming for basic treatments for their real problems, at a fraction of beauty industry costs!

Why are character and personality, such despised commodities?

Do westerners with their manufactured needs, and consumer fetishism realise how actually ugly and phony, and actually pathetic they look when they phony themselves up?

Ok, boys it is time to go to sleep and dream of lip service.

Louise, here is some lip about my appearance.  When I was about three years old because i was a male child my mother and my sisters drummed into me "Girls are made of sugar and spice and all things nice and boys are made of snips and snails and puppy dog tails.

You have heard of the story or Beauty and the Beast. Beauty is represented by the female gender in society and the Beast is the male gender. Males are judged by their appearace, Louise. Compared to a female there is no comparison. That is why males don't wear make up. Put a little on or half a tonne on a male's face and they still look ugly compared to the beauty of a woman. 

That is what was drummed into me as a child by my mother. Males are ugly compared to females. So how would you like to be ugly all your life from the womb to the grave and be male. It ain't fun.

Bloody hell where is my rouge?

Fiona: Welcome to Webdiary, Glen.