Beauty may be only skin deep, but the costs of its pursuit go far deeper. We all know that looks matter, but few of us realize how much. Seldom do we recognize the price we pay in time, money, and psychological well-being, or the extend to which our beauty biases compromise meritocratic principles. That is not to discount the positive aspects of beauty, including the pleasure that comes from self-expression or the health benefits that result from actions prompted by aesthetic concerns. Nor is it to suggest that discrimination based on appearance is on the same footing as other social problems, such as poverty, rape, domestic violence, and unequal pay. But the costs of out cultural preoccupation with attractiveness are much greater than we commonly assume.

Of all the major issues that the women’s movement has targeted, those related to appearance have shown among the least improvement. In fact, by some measures, such as the rise in eating disorders, cosmetic surgery, and dissatisfaction with body image, the problem has grown worse. Almost half of American women are unhappy with their bodies, a percentage higher than a quarter century ago. After money, appearance is women’s greatest source of dissatisfaction. Much of the reason lies in the guilt, shame, and discrimination that social pressures impose.

What then should we ask of society? Whatever their other differences, most women would rally behind an agenda that promoted more attainable, healthy, and inclusive ideals. Our aspirational standards should reflect greater variation across age, weight, race, and ethnicity, and our grooming requirements should reflect greater tolerance for diversity and self-expression. Judgments about appearance would be less important. Women would not be held to higher standards than men. Nor would women’s self-esteem be tied to appearance rather than accomplishment. Judgments based on attractiveness should not spill over to educational and employment contexts where they have no socially defensible role. More effort should focus on encouraging healthy lifestyles and addressing the weight-related problems that prompt discrimination.

In pursuing that agenda, an obvious place to start is to prohibit discrimination based on appearance. In one national poll, 16 percent of workers reported that they had been subject to such bias, a percentage that is slightly greater than those reporting gender or racial prejudice (12 percent). Most women do not believe that employers should have the right to discriminate based on looks. The reasons are straightforward. Such discrimination compromises principles of individual dignity and equal opportunity to the same extent as other forms of bias that are now illegal. Yet only a small number of jurisdictions explicitly ban discrimination based on appearance. What accounts for the difference in treatment?

To many observers, appearance discrimination seems a rational response to customer preferences. Employees’ attractiveness can often be an effective selling point, and part of a strategy to “brand” the seller through a certain look. According to a spokesperson for the Borgata Hotel Casino & Spa, its weight limits and periodic “weigh-in” requirements for “Borgata Babes” cocktail waitresses responded to market demands: “Our customers like being served by an attractive cocktail server.” Analogous assumptions evidently underpinned the order by a L’Oreal cosmetics store manager to “[g]et me somebody hot” for a sales position, Abercrombie & Fitch’s policy of hiring sexually attractive, “classic American” salespersons, and the preference by certain bars and restaurants for staff that are “young” and “trendy,” or not “too ethnic.” “So You Want to Hire the Beautiful,” ran the title of a Business Week column. “Well, Why Not?”