Is it ridiculous/unethical for a woman to wear glasses to look smarter?

This is a seemingly silly question asked of the NYT "ethicist":

I wear nonprescription eyeglasses on job interviews or when meeting new clients for the distinct purpose of gaining respect by appearing smarter and more credible. It would be unethical to use a wheelchair to gain sympathy by appearing disabled, so is this any different?

The letter writer is a woman, and the ethicist — a man — tells her it's not unethical and only an unintelligent person would think glasses make you look more intelligent. And: "If this fashion decision fools people, they deserve to be fooled."

I have about 10 problems with this answer:

1. There's an unexamined opinion that it's okay to fool people who are not intelligent.

2. There's the completely wrong notion that intelligent people have only rational, fact-based thoughts, not emotions and intuitions and sexual urges that influence what they do.

3. There's no attention to the analogy to using a wheelchair, which has many intriguing similarities and differences, such as the fact that a wheelchair only partly corrects a physical deficiency, but glasses presumably get you up to 20/20...

4. ... and the person in glasses is not trying to stimulate a feeling of warmth — sympathy — she's trying to avert feelings of warmth — sexual attraction — or avoid the appearance of warmth that may emanate from the unbespectacled face of a woman.

5. The word "fashion" is used to connote superficiality and light weight, but fashion is powerful in making impressions, and not just on fools. In fact, you're a fool if you think fashion has no impact on you.

6. Saying "fashion" implies the alternate analogy to clothing, but most of us dress in a special way for job interviews or to meet new clients, and we take that pretty seriously without assuming only a fool would be influenced.

7. The analogy to clothing is interestingly inaccurate, because glasses are needed — when they are needed — in a way that is different from clothing. We all need clothing to avoid being naked, but glasses are needed to get to an ideal level that some people have naturally. So wearing glasses contains this claim of physical weakness that the letter writer feels might constitute a lie.

8. Is unnecessary display of physical need wrong in this professional setting? We certainly — if we can — hide sexual urges and our need to urinate. Imagine what our clients would think if we made an outward display of those things. On this analysis, one could imagine thinking that people who need vision correction ought to wear contacts lenses.

9. This might really be about makeup. Studies have shown that it's contrast that makes a woman's face look more feminine — and women often use eyeliner, mascara, and eyebrow pencil to achieve this effect, but too much makeup may seem to send the wrong message. Glasses are a way to get some contrast onto the face.

10. Why do glasses work to turn Superman into Clark Kent?

"We are asking that everyone buy simple glasses."

"The yeshiva will not tolerate thick plastic eye glasses."

"Would You Rather Have Google Glass or a Smart Watch?"

"When you think of the world five years from now, do you picture the masses wearing smart eyewear or Dick Tracy-style smart watches?"

I see the problem with Google Glass — it will probably make most people look stupid and even if you happen to be someone who might look cool, people won't give you credit for looking cool because they'll feel that you're intruding on them in ways they don't even quite understand. Are you streaming me to the whole world? Are you finding out things that will be used to take advantage of me? That is, either you'll either make yourself look stupid or you'll make other people feel that you're making them look stupid. Must we all self-defensively gear up? And what's to stop people from snatching those things right off your face? Not only will they attract the traditional thief, they may provoke drunks and other hotheads to grab them and break them, the way bullies in old movies used to swipe the nerd's glasses and stomp on them.

But a Smart Watch... what's the point? I used to wear a watch, but I stopped when I got a cell phone which was fully capable of informing me of the time. I carry the phone in a pocket or a handbag, and what's my motivation to strap it to my wrist? I realize that's what people with pocket watches must have said when the original wristwatches came out.

And, now that I think of it, I have engaged in some activities — e.g., running — where I've rigged a less-than-perfect way to bring the iPhone along. (I've carried it in my hand, stuck it inside a sports-bra, and bought a little "waist pack" gizmo.) And I've been in situations — e.g., paddleboarding — where I needed some waterproof container, didn't have one, then bought something that was clumsy, ugly, and hard to use. And when I go swimming, I'm forced to leave the phone in the car/hotel room or I've got to hide it under a towel and then worry that someone will steal it. So, okay, the Smart Watch would be pretty useful, especially if it's cheap, comfortable, waterproof, and doesn't make you a theft target. Make it not work if someone else has it (and inform the thief community).

So I'm voting: Smart Watch.

Hillary Clinton, chin in palm, puts up with Rand Paul's tirade.

Rand begins with a feint: "I'm glad to see your health is improving." Note: he's a doctor. In fact, he's an ophthalmologist, but he didn't add, "And by the way, I love your new glasses." No, he proceeded to flay her.

This she was prepared for. All she had to do was endure. His time would run out, and it would be a Democrat's turn, which is to say it would be rest and relaxation time again. Mission accomplished.

Your assessment.
	Rand Paul destroyed Hillary.
	Rand Paul grandstanded and Hillary waited him out.
	Rand Paul was a clown and Hillary enjoyed seeing the drama spew from someone other than her.
	Rand Paul is a despicable little man and Hillary is a great lady.
pollcode.com free polls