Letter: Qualifications shouldn't include a woman's looks

Yes, athletes must possess superior skills, and other occupations do require special skills in order to pursue them. However, it doesn't matter if an athlete has a pretty face; they are judged on skill. Qualifications for several other occupations require education, intelligence, and merit -- not looks.

In this society, women have continued to be viewed as objects. This is apparent over and over in the media and in Hollywood. Several pictures have recently been released that portray aging men paired with younger, attractive women.

This seems to be acceptable according to a less educated segment of society; however, women are seldom given these types of roles and opportunities. No one will ever be able to convince me that Deborah Norville was more qualified to co-host the today show than Jane Pauley.

Women are intelligent, and I give them every credit for this intelligence. Some, however, become trapped into believing that all they need is a beautiful physical appearance. That is entirely wrong. Women are so much more than looks.

I have had the fortunate acquaintance of women who were overcome with terrible eating disorders in order to mold themselves into what others demanded them to be. These are very intelligent women who were deluded into thinking all they needed was a physical appearance.

To their relief, many of them have come to find that is not true, and they have gone on to pursue wonderful opportunities and more meaningful relationships that are not based on physical superficiality.

Yes, this type of discrimination must be stopped. It is unfair and it is wrong. Women deserve the right to pursue anything they desire without falsely believing all they are is a physical appearance.

If there is a segment of society that is threatened by this way of thinking, so be it.

Diane Weatherholt

archive