181-2-826
The same is true in other markets. Women have traditionally traded looks for economic support in marriage. A Chinese study confirms that the husbands of unappealing women earn about 10% less than those of their dishier counterparts. Attractive people also have an easier time getting a loan than plain folks, even as they are less likely to pay it back. They receive milder prison sentences and higher damages in simulated legal proceedings. In America more people say they have felt discriminated against for their appearance than because of their age, race or ethnicity. Pretty people, it seems, have all the luck. These books attempt to explain why that is, and what, if anything, should be done about it.
Daniel Hamermesh, an economist at the University of Texas, has long written about ¡°pulchronomics¡±. In ¡°Beauty Pays¡± he reckons that, over a lifetime and assuming today¡¯s mean wages, a handsome worker in America might on average make $230,000 more than a very plain one. There is evidence that attractive workers bring in more business, so it often makes sense for firms to hire them. Whether rewarding them accordingly—and paying their less attractive peers more stingily—is good for society is another matter.
In examining the case for legal protection for the ugly, Mr Hamermesh relies to a degree on the work of Deborah Rhode, a law professor at Stanford University and author of ¡°The Beauty Bias¡±. Ms Rhode clearly struggles to see why any woman would willingly embrace fashion (particularly high heels). She is outraged that virtually all females consider their looks as key to their self-image. She cites a survey in which over half of young women said they would prefer to be hit by a truck than be fat. Her indignation is mostly moral. Billions of dollars are now spent on cosmetic surgery—up to 90% of it by women—at a time when almost a fifth of Americans lack basic health care. The more women focus on improving their looks, Ms Rhode argues, the less they think about others.
A. ¾îÈÖ
trade Àå»çÇÏ´Ù, µ·À» ¹Þ°í ÆÈ´Ù. looks èâÙÉ(¿Ü¸ð).
unappealing ¸Å·ÂÀÌ ¾ø´Â. dish ¿¹»Û, ¸Å·ÂÀûÀÎ. loan ÓèÜõ(´ëºÎ).
sentences à¾Í±(¼±°í). damages ÛÓßÁÑÑ(¹è»ó±Ý), ¼ÕÇØ¾×.
simulated Ù¼ëô(¸ðÀÇ). simulated legal proceedings ¸ðÀǹý·ü¼Ò¼Û(¸ðÀÇÀçÆÇ).
discriminated Â÷º°´çÇÏ´Ù. for their appearance ¿Ü¸ð ¶§¹®¿¡.
ethnicity ¹ÎÁ·¼º. pulchronomics ¹Ì¸ð°æÁ¦ÇÐ. cf. pulchritude À°Ã¼ÀÇ ¾Æ¸§´Ù¿ò.
mean wages Æò±ÕÀÓ±Ý. makes sense Ô³×â(µµ¸®)¿¡ ¸Â´Ù, ÀÌÇØ°¡ µÇ´Ù.
firms ȸ»ç. accordingly ±×°Í¿¡ µû¶ó¼, ßÓëë(»óÀÀ)ÇÏ¿©.
peers µ¿·á. stingily ÀλöÇϰÔ. protection º¸È£. the ugly ¸ø»ý±ä »ç¶÷µé.
to a degree ¾î´À Á¤µµ±îÁö. Bias Æí°ß, ÞØàÊ(»ç¼±).
willingly ±â²¨ÀÌ, ÀÚÁøÇؼ. embrace ¹Þ¾ÆµéÀÌ´Ù, äÅÃÇÏ´Ù, ¾ó½Î¾È´Ù.
outraged °Ý³ëÇÏ´Ù. cite ÀοëÇÏ´Ù. indignation ºÐ³ë, ëùÝÉ(ÀǺÐ).
cosmetic surgery à÷û¡â¢âú(¼ºÇü¼ö¼ú).
ÇÑ´«¿¡ º¸´Â
º£½ºÆ® ±â»ç
- 1 Çѵ¿ÈÆÀÇ ¿ª»çÀû »ç¸í°ú Áö¹æ¼±°ÅÀÇ ÀǹÌ
- 2 5¿ù31ÀÏÀº ±èÀϼº ¾ÕÀ¸·Î ÆíÁö ¾´ ³¯
- 3 À°»ç(ëÁÞÍ)°¡ ¹Ì¿ì¸é À°»ç¸¸ ÆóÁöÇ϶ó
- 4 ¿Ö ¸»¸®´Â »ç¶÷±îÁö ÈæÈ(ýÙûù)Çϴ°¡?
- 5 ÃÖ¾ÇÀÇ ÀúÁúµé¿¡°Ô Áö¹è´çÇÏ´Â ¿ì¸®ÀÇ Çö½Ç
- 6 ³ëÀε鿡°Ô ȸÀü¿îµ¿À» ºÎÃß±â´Ù´Ï
- 7 çïá¦ý³(¿À¼¼ÈÆ) ¼¿ï½ÃÀåÀÇ ½Â¸®´Â ¿øÄ¢°ú Á¤ÀÇÀÇ ½Â¸®´Ù
- 8 ¼¿ï½Ã¹ÎÀº ÀÌÀç¸í Á¤±ÇÀ» ½ÉÆÇÇß½À´Ï´Ù
- 9 ³²ÇÑ ºÎÀΰúÀÇ ÀÌÈ¥ µ¿±â(ÔÑѦ) - '±×³É ½È¾î¼'
- 10 ±èÁøÀº Àú½Â¿¡¼ Çѵ¿ÈÆÀ» ÀÀ¿øÇϰí ÀÖÀ» °ÍÀÌ´Ù!












