# Si richiede bella presenza



## Paulfromitaly

Hello,

Going through job offers, you may come across this standard phrase: "Si richiede bella presenza"
which basically means that the applicants must be good looking.
What's the standard, fixed, politically correct phrase to express the same concept in English?

Thank you


----------



## elfa

Paulfromitaly said:


> Hello,
> 
> Going through job offers, you may come across this standard phrase: "Si richiede bella presenza"
> which basically means that the employer requires that the applicants must be good looking.
> What's the standard, fixed, politically correct phrase to express the same concept in English?



That's just the point, Paul. We don't have it because it's politically incorrect. 

In fact, I think I'm right in saying it's against the law (in the UK, anyway) to specify such things.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

elfa said:


> That's just the point, Paul. We don't have it because it's politically incorrect.
> 
> In fact, I think I'm right in saying it's against the law (in the UK, anyway) to specify such things.


I've been wondering about it when I realised I had never found anything like that before 
I can assure you it's quite common to find "si richiede bella presenza" in a job offer for shop assistants, airlines crew, bar staff and so on..


----------



## Cavaturaccioli

I'd describe it as a 'Corporate appearance'.


----------



## johngiovanni

Dress codes are not illegal.  It is perfectly OK for an employer to require and to specify a dress code.  It is OK for employers to say they require people to be suitably dressed or to present themselves appropriately, and they can - and frequently do - clarify what they mean by that - going into some detail if necessary.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

johngiovanni said:


> Dress codes are not illegal.  It is perfectly OK for an employer to require and to specify a dress code.  It is OK for employers to say they require people to be suitably dressed or to present themselves appropriately, and they can - and frequently do - clarify what they mean by that - going into some detail if necessary.


Thank you John, however "bella presenza" has nothing to do with dress codes, I'm afraid..It means the employer'd rather hire only good looking people, plain and simple 

Example:


> XXX cerca a Catania hostess e  steward, per  congresso che si terrà nei giorni 13-14 marzo dalle 8:00 alle  18:00,* si  richiede bella presenza*


This is a typical job offer and you can find more than a million Google hits for "si richiede bella presenza"


----------



## johngiovanni

Paulfromitaly said:


> Thank you John, however "bella presenza" has nothing to do with dress codes, I'm afraid..It means the employer'd rather hire only good looking people, plain and simple


In that case, I will not apply.   And in the UK I don't think employers would get away with it in public.  It is sometimes related to age-discrimination.  Vedi: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...-sacking-miriam-oreilly-because-of-her-age.do


----------



## Paulfromitaly

johngiovanni said:


> In that case, I will not apply.   And in the UK I don't think employers would get away with it in public.  It is sometimes related to age-discrimination.  Vedi: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...-sacking-miriam-oreilly-because-of-her-age.do


That's probably what most of the foreigners think when they have to apply for a job in Italy.


----------



## mokinga

Not politically correct in Australia, either.  The closest adjective I can think of is 'must be *presentable*' but again, that's more to do with looking suitably esp in the way one is dressed. Would that be similar to 'fare bella figura' then?


----------



## Paulfromitaly

mokinga said:


> Would that be similar to 'fare bella figura' then?


Nope, that means to make a good impression.


----------



## SighingatSilvio

This one blew me away a bit, even given what I know of Italy.

Something like: "Only well presented applicants should apply" would be about as far as you could get away with in Aust/UK/US.  If it is as Paolo says (and I don't doubt it) - asking for good looking people only - there would certainly be legal difficulty, to say the least.

Is there an Italian template for what qualifies as 'good looking'?  You could always say your mother thought so, if push came to shove.


----------



## zipp404

Absoloutely out of the question in the USA.  
It's the set of skills and professionalism that a person has to offer that is regarded as important and 'good looking' as a criterion in hiring does not exist*. However, that is not to say that it may not have been an additional contributing factor in why or why not someone got _this _or _that _job. But as an openly declared standard ?  Forget it.  You'd get sued.

*except perhaps in modeling?


----------



## You little ripper!

You could always get away with it by using the word 'personable' in a job ad. It means both _to be attractive of appearance_ and _to have a pleasing personality_. 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Personable?r=66

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-GB&q=%22personable+receptionist+required%22&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=

In this ad for a Greeter/Front Door Receptionist, it clearly means 'good-looking':
_ Well spoken, personable and friendly individual required immediately for retail store _.........

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:h2cV6yAE7kEJ:www.indeed.ca/Greeter-jobs-in-Toronto,-ON+%22personable+*+required%22&cd=17&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au&source=www.google.com.au


----------



## Wade Aznable

I know this is gonna get me very impopular, but... 
Political correctness is WAY overestimated, QUITE pointless, MORE discriminating than its "normal-behaviour" alternative and, since everyone claims to use it but actually doesn't really care about it, VERY hypocritical. 

Furthermore on the "bella presenza" topic, let's be honest: every company, from the global conglomerate to the little trendy shop downtown, has got a "corporate image", built along time with planning and efforts. 
"Good looks" can be, actually, necessary to maintain such image - and to increase revenue! see later - , especially in positions requiring contact with the customer (the airline hostess / steward or the shop attendant are perfect examples). 
In such cases, in my opinion, "good looks" stay with a good reason in the list of the necessary skills / abilities / attitudes the employee must have to get hired; and I really can't see the problem here. 
To be even blunter, I could also say that, since I'm the employer, and I pay the wages, I can hire whomever I want, and nobody can say / do nothing about it - if you don't like my policies, go apply somewhere else. 

Of course I completely agree that looks are to be excluded from such list in case of highly skilled jobs: a top manager does not need looks (even if they help), a shop attendant does indeed. 
Basically, in my opinion the discriminating factor is the contact with the general public. Banal it may be, but a good-looking clerk will get more people into my shop, and in the long run will increase my revenue: a good enough reason to hire him / her. It's marketing, plain and simple (lots and lots of psychological studies about what influences customers have been made, and it's quite more complicated than that, but down to the core, I buy more stuff, and more willingly, if assisted by Megan Fox / Johnny Depp, rather than by Susan Boyle / Iggy Pop). 

I apologize for the rant, and for getting off-thread, but WR is great because it's not ONLY for information exchange, but also for IDEAS exchange, so I felt I could throw in my 2 cents. 

That said, and getting back to language, I completely agree with Charles' suggestion ("personable"). 

Thanks! 

W


----------



## elfa

Following on from Charles's suggestion, I see "well-groomed" applied to a different ad. I think you could just about get away with that in an ad for certain jobs in the UK - in this case, another greeter.

Paul, having looked at job ads in Italy (in an ill-fated attempt to get one!) I am very familiar with that phrase. It's so common (and *so* un-PC), to foreigners it's laughable.

PS Interesting contribution, Wade. The fact is, it's being *seen* to do the "right" thing. We could all privately think that so-and-so is a complete b**tard, but saying it out loud to his face really wouldn't help our cause.


----------



## Gianfry

This is an extremely interesting issue. As Paul says, there's plenty of ads asking for good-looking people. They often clearly state they're hiring women/girls, possibly under a certain age etc. A triumph of politically incorrect! 
I wonder if it isn't supposed to be illegal _even _in Italy!
Outside a pizzeria in my town I've recently seen an ad that read, simply: "cercasi ragazza" (hiring a girl), without even stating the kind of job (waitress, most likely). To me, "cercasi ragazza" could easily mean "I'm looking for a girlfriend"! 

EDIT:
@wade: Sono in totale disaccordo col tuo punto di vista, ma vorrei evitare di andare troppo off-topic discutendone. Comunque, avrai ragione solo quando questo governo avrà modificato l'articolo 41 della Costituzione, come ha dichiarato di voler fare (figuriamoci!).


----------



## Einstein

I think it's a deliberately ambiguous term! Everyone knows that it means good-looking, but it remains open to interpretation as "well-groomed", as elfa says. After all, I think that even in Italy people would criticise "cercasi commessa carina", so "bella presenza" is a euphemism.

Wade Aznable says:





> ...since I'm the employer, and I pay the wages, I can hire whomever I want, and nobody can say/do nothing about it - if you don't like my policies, go apply somewhere else.


In a text-book version of a free market economy, with infinite free choice for everyone, this might seem reasonable, but we don't live in such a society.


----------



## furs

I think this may be the first time I disagree with Gianfry, but I guess Wade hit the nail on the head with his contribution.


----------



## Gianfry

furs said:


> I think this may be the first time I disagree with Gianfry, but I guess Wade hit the nail on the head with his contribution.


Since you dragged me into this )) I'll make clear a few of my points:
1. Tutti i cittadini hanno pari dignità sociale e                          sono eguali davanti alla legge, senza distinzione di sesso,                          di razza, di lingua, di religione, di opinioni politiche,                          di condizioni personali e sociali [...] (art. 3 Cost.). L'iniziativa economica privata è libera. Non può svolgersi in contrasto con l'utilità                          sociale o in modo da recare danno alla sicurezza, alla                          libertà, alla dignità umana [...] (art. 41 Cost.).
2. It's a matter of civility to give everybody an opportunity if they think they deserve it. Can you understand what it means for a non-good-looking person to come across to such ads???
3. I question whether people are more likely to buy if they are being served by good-looking people. If this is the case, it's a cultural problem that should be removed, not encouraged! Personally, I appreciate politeness, cleverness, readiness, expertise. A few months ago, in a telephony shop, I argued with two "good-looking" saleswomen who couldn't answer a very simple question about the costs of an offer and turned annoyed because I was (politely) insisting to get help. I will definitely never step into that shop again...
4. If I want to have some kind of affair with a beautiful woman/man, there's plenty everywhere, no need to buy a pair of shoes or an insurance policy for it...


----------



## Wade Aznable

Didn't mean to cause a ruckus, but I admit it was somewhat expected... Anyway, 2 more cents then I quit (I promise ): 




elfa said:


> PS Interesting contribution, Wade. The fact is, it's being *seen* to do the "right" thing. We could all privately think that so-and-so is a complete b**tard, but saying it out loud to his face really wouldn't help our cause.


Exactly my point: PC is an unnecessary and hypocritical filter. 
I guess a lot of people agree on that, and simply don't say that loud to avoid, well, controversy! 





Einstein said:


> In a text-book version of a free market economy, with infinite free choice for everyone, this might seem reasonable, but we don't live in such a society.


Not text-book at all, most of all in a world where a few euros more or a few euros less mean the difference between keeping the business going and closing it down for good. 





Gianfry said:


> @wade: Sono in totale disaccordo col tuo punto di vista, ma vorrei evitare di andare troppo off-topic discutendone. Comunque, avrai ragione solo quando questo governo avrà modificato l'articolo 41 della Costituzione, come ha dichiarato di voler fare (figuriamoci!).


Nessuno vuole inficiare la Costituzione, ma sarai d'accordo con me che la vita di tutti giorni ha componenti pratiche che (giustamente) non possono essere codificate dalla legge - se lo facessimo, avremmo 10 miliardi di pagine di codici, e soprattutto saremmo completamente paralizzati in ogni azione. 
Detto questo, se my good-looking clerk (uso l'inglese apposta per evitare commesso/commessa) aiuta a far andar bene la mia attività, potrò offrire migliori condizioni di lavoro (in soldoni, un aumento, che visti i tempi fa sempre piacere), e magari espandermi e assumere another clerk, creando così un nuovo posto di lavoro. Dove, esattamente, tutto ciò è anticostituzionale??? 





furs said:


> I think this may be the first time I disagree with Gianfry, but I guess Wade hit the nail on the head with his contribution.


Thanks for the support! 





Gianfry said:


> Since you dragged me into this )) I'll make clear a few of my points:
> 1. Nobody can be discriminated due to their sex and personal condition (art. 3 Cost.)
> 2. It's a matter of civility to give everybody an opportunity if they think they deserve it. Can you understand what it means for a non-good-looking person to come across to such ads???
> 3. I question whether people are more likely to buy if they are being served by good-looking people. If this is the case, it's a cultural problem that should be removed, not encouraged! Personally, I appreciate politeness, cleverness, readiness, expertise. A few months ago, in a telephony shop, I argued with two "good-looking" saleswomen who couldn't answer a very simple question about the costs of an offer and turned annoyed because I was (politely) insisting to get help. I will definitely never step into that shop again...
> 4. If I want to have some kind of affair with a beautiful woman/man, there's plenty everywhere, no need to buy a pair of shoes or an insurance policy for it...


 
1., 2. - It's not discrimination at all, when looks are necessary for the kind of job (and in some jobs they are. Period). Taking your line of thought to the extreme, we'd end to the paradox of hiring a mathematician to teach maths and being sued 'cause we're discriminating literature professors. 
And about hurting the feelings of the ad's reader, quite frankly... taking offense because he/she is not what I'm looking for it's their problem, not mine. Going to the extreme, the same could apply to the above professors, and although hilarious I'd find that quite ludicrous. 

3. - Again, nobody's talking about right or wrong. I agree with you on the fact that's a cultural problem. Anyway, solving the problem is out of my little shop-keeper reach, while riding the tide and having my business doing fine is not. 
And, if you give me some time, I can give you a whole list of psychological marketing studies resulting in the direct influence between the seller's looks and the customer's willingness to buy, most of all in certain businesses. 

4. - Assuming you're kidding, it's not about getting laid or getting a date, it's about running a successful business (see above). 

All of the above, without animosity - indeed, with pleasure for a good discussion... food for the brain  

And now, I promise, I'm done. 
Greetings! 

W


----------



## Gianfry

Sorry, wade: your points are pure non-sense to me! This is not the place for a deeper insight, though. I think we'd better stop it here, as you say.
Anyway, I'm glad our AE/BE friends have a chance of brooding over two completely opposite Italian views on this delicate issue...
Ciao,
G.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Charles Costante said:


> You could always get away with it by using the word 'personable' in a job ad. It means both _to be attractive of appearance_ and _to have a pleasing personality_.
> 
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Personable?r=66


Thanks Charles!
I think _personable_ is quite close to "di bella presenza" although you say that "It means both _to be attractive of appearance_ and _to have a pleasing personality"_ whereas di bella presenza doesn't say anything about personality, but only about looks.



elfa said:


> Following on from Charles's suggestion, I see "well-groomed" applied to a different ad. I think you could just about get away with that in an ad for certain jobs in the UK - in this case, another greeter.
> 
> Paul, having looked at job ads in Italy (in an ill-fated attempt to get one!) I am very familiar with that phrase. It's so common (and *so* un-PC), to foreigners it's laughable.


I think "well-groomed" could work too 

To the English speakers: "Si richiede bella presenza" doesn't actually mean that only good looking people need apply.
I believe it may be something more similar to a hint than to a strict requirement: "Bear in mind we will also take into account your look when we make our choice".
I'm sure that also non-Italian employers would take applicants' look into account if, say, they were looking for airlines cabin crew (BA hostesses were known to be all really good looking and not by chance )


----------



## elfa

Paulfromitaly said:


> To the English speakers: "Si richiede bella presenza" doesn't actually mean that only good looking people need apply.
> I believe it may be something more similar to a hint than to a strict  requirement: "Bear in mind we will also take into account your look when  we make our choice".



Quite so - but it is the fact that Italian employers can put this *in print* (and get away with it) that makes it laughable. 



Paulfromitaly said:


> I'm sure that also non-Italian employers would take applicants' look into account if, say, they were looking for airlines cabin crew (BA hostesses were known to be all really good looking and not by chance )




Yes, indeed - they're just not allowed to admit to it!


----------



## Wade Aznable

elfa said:


> Quite so - but it is the fact that Italian employers can put this *in print* (and get away with it) that makes it laughable.
> 
> Yes, indeed - they're just not allowed to admit to it!


 
So which one is the most laughable?


----------



## Paulfromitaly

elfa said:


> Quite so - but it is the fact that Italian employers can put this *in print* (and get away with it) that makes it laughable.



You're right, however I think that writing "Si richiede bella presenza" in a job offer is, to a certain extent, something some people do just because they have seen it before.
They don't really mean it, but they believe it has to be there to make their offer sound just as formal as possible.


----------



## elfa

Paulfromitaly said:


> I think that writing "Si richiede bella presenza" in a job offer is, to a certain extent, something some people do just because they have seen it before.
> They don't really mean it, but they believe it has to be there to make their offer sound just as formal as possible.



Which takes us back to whether "personable" or well-groomed" would be equivalents "formulas". 

Another alternative might be "presentable"
A phrase you see is "Applicants must be presentable..." See here

PS Saying "they don't really mean it" doesn't really excuse the fact that this phrase is ubiquitous. This is the equivalent of keeping "negro" or "coloured" in the English vocabulary: it is still offensive, even though to most people it may have lost its historical association...


----------



## mrpatter

May I ask those who say that such a requirement would be illegal in the US to identify what law or constitutional provision would make it so?  That is, what bans are there on appearance discrimination?  I think a state or two might have a law against it, and one might be able to argue that it is sometimes sex discrimination, but for the most part I think it's permissible.

I do think, however, that no employer in the US would put such a requirement in an employment advertisement.  But that's just because of bad PR.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

elfa said:


> Another alternative might be "presentable"
> A phrase you see is "Applicants must be presentable..." See here


Would "presentable" be more common than "personable", at least in the UK?
To require that applicants must be "presentabili" in Italian would be superfluous actually..
Who would ever hire someone who's not presentable?


----------



## elfa

Paulfromitaly said:


> Would "presentable" be more common than "personable", at least in the UK?
> To require that applicants must be "presentabili" in Italian would be superfluous actually..
> Who would ever hire someone who's not presentable?



I can't say I've ever seen "personable" in a job ad so, to me, "presentable" would be more common.

In answer to your question, of course, no-one would ever hire somebody who's not "presentable". But then, who in Italy would ever hire somebody who did non deem/consider themselves to have "bella presenza"?


----------



## You little ripper!

> think _personable_ is quite close to "di bella presenza" although you say that "It means both _to be attractive of appearance_ and _to have a pleasing personality"_ whereas di bella presenza doesn't say anything about personality, but only about looks.


It can mean either or both. 


'Well-groomed' means to be well-dressed, neat and clean. 'Presentable' means to be socially acceptable as far as cleanliness, appearance, dress and manner. You could have someone who is _presentable_/_well-groomed_ but not necessarily attractive of appearance.


----------



## Lorena1970

Charles Costante said:


> I You could have someone who is _presentable_/_well-groomed_ but not necessarily *attractive of appearance.*



After having read the whole thread, I have the feeling that, maybe, this is the right one to literally translate "Si richiede bella presenza"...?
"_attractive appearence is requested/ essential / necessary_"...?


( The sentence is terrible in Italian, but in English it sounds even worst...! )


----------



## Luigicamp

I was born and grew up in Switzerland (Italian-speaking area) and it's the same thing. "Bella presenza" is not the only shameful statement (that's what I call it) you constantly see, you also see "fascia di età" (age range) as well. I have been in the USA for 13 years now, and here such requests in a job are not just politically incorrect, they are also forbidden, it goes against the law for profiling people. 
I love Switzerland because it's like my first home, but I don't have any problems saying how racist and politically incorrect they can be; they may never "spell it out" for you, but they have so many ways to suggest it!


----------



## Cangurotto

Just chiming in here, and not sure if this has been said, but what about "one needs to be well-presented" (or well presented)?  Just a thought.

Cheers.


----------



## rrose17

Cangurotto said:


> Just chiming in here, and not sure if this has been said, but what about "one needs to be well-presented" (or well presented)?  Just a thought.


No, sorry it doesn't really mean anything. It would have to be, as suggested a few times above, "presentable" or in a stretch maybe "One needs to present themselves well" but this really starts to sound like English that's been badly translated.


----------



## chipulukusu

But _presentable _has to do with the way one dresses, comb their hair, behaves in general, _not _with physical beauty or attractiveness, I think, so it is not what the OP was meant for.
I understand that there is no law that prohibits appearance-based discrimination, but the fact is that we are dangerously close to age-discrimination in this field,  and this is certainly against the law (and the Italian constitution).
It may be out of hypocrisy, but the fact is that in England aged people, and aged women in particular, have way more opportunities than in Italy. This is blatantly evident. If the price for this is an excess of politically correctness, it is worth paying it.
The push for increasing pension age in Italy, expecially for women, without considering cultural differences, is a proof of how we turn a blind eye on how behind we are when it comes to equal opportunities. Blessed be hypocrisy in this case.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

chipulukusu said:


> But _presentable _has to do with the way one dresses, comb their hair, behaves in general, _not _with physical beauty or attractiveness


In general, "di bella presenza" means both attractive and presentable/neat/well-groomed, then, depending on the kind of job that it's offered, one aspect can weigh more than the other.
If we're talking about a shop assistant position in a haute couture boutique, the applicant must definitely be also neat and well-groomed, not only attractive, while if we're talking about a barmaid/barman in a pub the physical attractiveness is the key.


----------



## tsoapm

You little ripper! said:


> You could always get away with it by using the word 'personable' in a job ad. It means both _to be attractive of appearance_ and _to have a pleasing personality_.


I never knew that.





elfa said:


> I can't say I've ever seen "personable" in a job ad so, to me, "presentable" would be more common.


I think ‘personable’ in the sense of pleasing personality is more likely to be “good people skills”.


----------



## You little ripper!

Mark, this is what Dictionary.com says:

Personable

_adjective
1.
of pleasing personal appearance; handsome or comely; attractive.
2.
having an agreeable or pleasing personality; affable; amiable; sociable._


----------



## tsoapm

Yes, Oxford Dictionaries confirmed what you said as well.


----------



## sorry66

I thought 'personable' was just about personality nowadays, too.


chipulukusu said:


> But _presentable _has to do with the way one dresses, comb their hair, behaves in general, _not _with physical beauty or attractiveness,


adjective: *presentable*
clean, smart, or decent enough to be seen in public.
I think there is a nuance to ' not presentable': I might say it about an embarrassing family member that I am loath to introduce to friends.

For the OP, I'd say something along the lines 'of pleasing appearance' (not PC, I know! but you could hide it among other qualities) or 'impeccable presentation required'.

Maybe you could get away with something like 'the post is best suited to someone with natural charm/charisma'. (suitably ambiguous?)


----------



## AlabamaBoy

In the USA it is legally equivalent to saying: Sales lady wanted. Ugly women need not apply.

Get ready for the lawsuit. You might even get arrested. Now if you never say anything and only hire attractive young women, you still might get sued. If it is a modeling agency,  (edit: or a certain restaurant chain that features orange short shorts) they probably won't get sued.

Relying on the ambiguity of "personable" can be dangerous. It is simply inviting investigation into your hiring practices.

I don't think you can say "personable" is a good translation in American English for that reason. Yes, there is a lot of hypocracy because a lot of people just don't care for fairness. Political correctness is a term used by people who want to discriminate by religion, race, gender, sexual preference, nerdiness or whatever but know they are not allowed to do it by law.


----------



## rrose17

I also thought that it was "illegal" to specify someone's age/appearance in an job ad, but then I thought of this American restaurant chain that features scantily clad waitresses as their famous "icon". Here are some job descriptions...knock yourself out. "bubbly, charismatic, glamourous" etc are some of the key words.


----------



## tsoapm

Well that’s just a fudge, isn’t it? None of them unambiguously refer to age/appearance.


----------



## MR1492

mrpatter said:


> May I ask those who say that such a requirement would be illegal in the US to identify what law or constitutional provision would make it so?  That is, what bans are there on appearance discrimination?  I think a state or two might have a law against it, and one might be able to argue that it is sometimes sex discrimination, but for the most part I think it's permissible.
> 
> I do think, however, that no employer in the US would put such a requirement in an employment advertisement.  But that's just because of bad PR.



To answer this question since it did not draw a response, here is the website from the US EEOC:

Prohibited Practices

and others:

Employment Discrimination

Interestingly enough, the Constitution of the USA and it various state constitutions bar discrimination by the federal government or the states but do not implicitly forbid discrimination in the private sector.  However, the federal government has expanded into regulating previously private interactions through the "Commerce Clause" of the US Constitution.  That clause gives the Federal government the authority to intervene in matters of interstate commerce.  Since hiring practices involve organizations in commerce, the clause gives Congress the power to act.

Just a little US Constitutional law for our non-USA participants.

Phil


----------



## tsoapm

I looked in vain for the term “appearance” (is there something else I should have searched for?) but did find plenty of other things: race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age, disability, genetic information.


----------



## MR1492

I didn't find it either, tsoapm, but thought it worth answering the old question.  Here in the USA, the definition of what constitutes illegal discrimination keeps expanding.  I fear we will reach a point where no decision is possible and we are all reduced to blithering idiots.  Unless that is discriminatory in which case I take it all back!!!

Phil


----------



## sorry66

From rrose's link: 
"An exclusive position, reserved only for those who are entertaining, goal oriented, glamorous, and charismatic"
"she is identified by her....her fit body which all contribute to her confidence and poise."
"Hooter Girl Image (Fit & Glamorous)"

They've used words like 'charismatic' and 'glamorous' and seem to have got away with it - by couching them among other terms. I think they could have easily have  referred to 'allure', 'appearance' etc. here.


----------



## Cangurotto

rrose17 said:


> ....No, sorry it doesn't really mean anything.


Hi rrose17.  Not sure what you mean by "it doesn't really mean anything"?  Are you saying that it doesn't mean anything in English?  Have you ever heard "well presented" used in relation to job interviews?  In Australian English, it's actually used quite a lot. 
I agree that "well presented" probably doesn't have a strong "you need to be good-looking" connotation to it (I just wanted to add it to the pile), but many native English speakers _do_ actually take it to mean just that. 
Here's just one of many examples:  http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/1586070
....and another: Well Presented Receptionist Jobs, vacancies | Indeed.co.uk
A great discussion going on in this thread!  Thanks to all the contributors.


----------



## london calling

I have also read job ads in which they ask for someone who is well-presented. I take it to be a reference to the way applicants should turn themselves out (neatly, tidily dressed, well-groomed, not like something the cat dragged in) and not a reference to their looks.


----------



## Cangurotto

Agreed, london calling.  I've always taken "well presented" to mean just what you've stated.  A search on the internet, however, proved to be quite interesting as I noticed that a lot of native English speakers (especially those looking for work) see "well presented" as subtly implying that a person needs to also be "good-looking".  Perhaps it's an aspect that people who think they're _not_ good-looking tend to overly focus on and confuse?


----------



## rrose17

That's a new one on me. I never heard the expression "well-presented" although I just looked it up and I see it is indeed used in a very all encompassing and vaguely ambiguous way to say attractive.


----------



## Cangurotto

rrose17 said:


> That's a new one on me. I never heard the expression "well-presented" although I just looked it up and I see it is indeed used in a very all encompassing and vaguely ambiguous way to say attractive.


That's right, rrose17.  Italians, on the other hand, are a little less subtle and "politically correct", as others before me have said.  There's no beating around the bush for them....."This is how we want you and we're coming right out and saying it!"   While it may be construed as being politically incorrect, I personally don't have a problem with it, for all the reasons Wade Aznable so eloquently mentioned earlier on in this thread.


----------



## tsoapm

Cangurotto said:


> it may be construed as being politically incorrect


More importantly, it may be considered illegal discrimination on the basis of appearance in English-speaking countries. A cultural difference to be aware of.


----------



## Nubivago

Paulfromitaly said:


> Hello,
> 
> Going through job offers, you may come across this standard phrase: "Si richiede bella presenza"
> which basically means that the applicants must be good looking.
> What's the standard, fixed, politically correct phrase to express the same concept in English?
> 
> Thank you



I beg to differ: the expression 'di bella presenza' doesn't necessarily mean 'good-looking' (in the sense of 'beautiful' or 'comely'), and 
while Italians are indeed obsessed with 'beauty', this expression does in fact mean 'well-groomed', 'coiffed' or 'nicely put together' in the recruiting business.

A scruffy or unshaven man can still be attractive but not if he has grimy fingernails. Similarly, a woman sporting a fuchsia mohawk, however gorgeous, may not be what the recruiter is looking for.

I would not in a million years describe a date I went out with as 'di bella presenza' (e.g. * _Sono uscito con una tipa/un tipo l'altra sera ed era proprio di bella presenza). _

So even though it is a culture-specific expression, which would best be left out in an English-language context, I don't understand how this harmless enough expression could have spun such a debate.

The original equation is a bit of a red herring, I'm afraid.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Nubivago said:


> I beg to differ: the expression 'di bella presenza' doesn't necessarily mean 'good-looking'


I beg to differ too: _di bella presenza_ implies good looking.
A well groomed yet totally unattractive woman would never fit in the "bella presenza" definition.

*NOTE*: _The point of this thread is not to judge or determine whether it's fair or legal or right to require that  applicants must be of "bella presenza", we only want to find the closest translation in English._


----------



## ain'ttranslationfun?

Paulfromitaly said:


> I beg to differ too: _di bella presenza_ implies good looking.
> A well groomed yet totally unattractive woman would never fit in the "bella presenza" definition.



Then she could sue the employer in the US if she wasn't hired.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

ain'ttranslationfun? said:


> Then she could sue the employer in the US if she wasn't hired.


I'm sure she could in the US, but not over here.


----------



## ain'ttranslationfun?

Paulfromitaly said:


> I'm sure she could in the US, but not over here.



But "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." Perhaps her husband might like to have a few words with the employer if she wasn't hired...


----------



## Passante

What about personable?


----------



## Nubivago

Paulfromitaly said:


> I beg to differ too: _di bella presenza_ implies good looking.
> A well groomed yet totally unattractive woman would never fit in the "bella presenza" definition.
> 
> *NOTE*: _The point of this thread is not to judge or determine whether it's fair or legal or right to require that  applicants must be of "bella presenza", we only want to find the closest translation in English._




Then I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.

My point was that  'di bella presenza' is never sexually charged, nor does it necessarily mean that you are naturally attractive the way 'good-looking' does.

e.g. _Jill is really good-looking _ would never be idiomatically translated as _Jill è davvero di bella presenza_ but rather as_ Jill è davvero bella.

_


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Nubivago said:


> My point was that 'di bella presenza' is never sexually charged


Nobody said it's sexually charged.
I said that "good looking, beautiful" and "well groomed/nicely put together" are two different things and "di bella presenza" implies the former.


----------



## Nubivago

Paulfromitaly said:


> Nobody said it's sexually charged.
> I said that "good looking, beautiful" and "well groomed/nicely put together" are two different things and "di bella presenza" implies the former.




Could you quote some sources?


----------



## tsoapm

johngiovanni said:


> Dress codes are not illegal. It is perfectly OK for an employer to require and to specify a dress code. It is OK for employers to say they require people to be suitably dressed or to present themselves appropriately, and they can - and frequently do - clarify what they mean by that - going into some detail if necessary.


There was a big fuss about unspoken expectations and high heels a little while ago. It caused a lot of discussion, but I can't quite remember what the outcome was. I _think_ essentially nothing changed in the end, but the issue is getting increasingly sensitive.

What do we mean by ‘nicely put together’, by the way? I think you mean prepared so as to be presentable, but I would only read that English expression as a roundabout yet unsubtle way of saying physically attractive at the level of the body.


----------



## Nubivago

tsoapm said:


> There was a big fuss about unspoken expectations and high heels a little while ago. It caused a lot of discussion, but I can't quite remember what the outcome was. I _think_ essentially nothing changed in the end, but the issue is getting increasingly sensitive.
> 
> What do we mean by ‘nicely put together’, by the way? I think you mean prepared so as to be presentable, but I would only read that English expression as a roundabout yet unsubtle way of saying physically attractive at the level of the body.



What I've been trying to put across - perhaps unsuccessfully - is that 'di bella presenza' virtually means 'smart' in its British sense. It's not about being selected for a beauty pageant. The overall result of 'putting yourself together' (i.e, grooming, dressing up, etc.) is of course pleasing to the eye, but in my opinion has little to do with the classical standards of beauty or 'hotness', and as such should not be regarded as discriminatory.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Nubivago said:


> What I've been trying to put across - perhaps unsuccessfully - is that 'di bella presenza' virtually means 'smart' in its British sense


You keep missing the point, sadly.
IF "di bella presenza" only meant "smart looking and well groomed" there would be NO problem at all, it wouldn't be not politically correct and it'd be the first line of each and every job offer, seeing that no one is happy to hire a slob. Why all this fuss then? Because it obviously doesn't really mean that, especially when the job offers are tailored for young women.


Nubivago said:


> Could you quote some sources?





> https://www.skyscanner.it/notizie/*come-lavorare-per-le-compagnie-aeree*
> *I requisiti di tipo fisico richiesti per diventare assistente di volo sono:*
> – bella presenza e aspetto molto curato;
> ......


As you can see "bella presenza" and "aspetto curato" are 2 different requirements.
You will hardly ever see any young flight attendants who aren't good looking..is that just sheer chance?


----------



## Nubivago

Paulfromitaly said:


> You keep missing the point, sadly.
> IF "di bella presenza" only meant "smart looking and well groomed" there would be NO problem at all, it wouldn't be not politically correct and it'd be the first line of each and every job offer, seeing that no one is happy to hire a slob. Why all this fuss then? Because it obviously doesn't really mean that, especially when the job offers are tailored for young women.
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see "bella presenza" and "aspetto curato" are 2 different requirements.
> You will hardly ever see any young flight attendants who aren't good looking..is that just sheer chance?




I don't think I'm missing the point, but _your _point.

It also seems to me that you originally wanted to find out how to translate 'di bella presenza' and not get
embroiled in any PC diatribe. 

However, for anyone else interested in a different definition of the phrase:

Bella presenza cosa significa nella ricerca di lavoro - FioreRosalba.com

and from Treccani:

Aspetto esteriore, modo di presentarsi di una persona: _una ragazza_, _un anziano signore di bella p_.; con uso assol., aspetto gradevole e tale da fare buona impressione,

PS I'd leave out 'sadly' and 'obviously' from your prose as these little words come off as being somewhat patronizing in English.


----------



## ain'ttranslationfun?

tsoapm said:


> I would only read that English expression [well put together] as a roundabout yet unsubtle way of saying physically attractive at the level of the body.



So would I (= well-built). It can also be said of men.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Nubivago said:


> PS I'd leave out 'sadly' and 'obviously' from your prose


Well, I would include the link you required and then ignored since it proves you wrong.
You keep repeating over and over again what the politically correct version of "bella presenza"  should mean, not what it actually means.


----------



## elfa

I think the point is here that, whether you agree with Paul's interpretation of "di bella presenza" or not (and personally, I have always taken it to mean "being physically attractive"), you cannot translate it to *mean *that in the English language. In fact, in these days of hashtag Metoo, an job ad _stating_ physical attractiveness as a pre-requisite would be all over Twitter, social media in no time at all! And someone would probably be suing the potential employer. I'm afraid the only solutions would be those already suggested early on in the post - _personable, well presented, suitably dressed_ etc - which, while they may be missing the point in the original, would be the only means of coming close. Amen


----------



## symposium

"Di bella presenza" definitely means "good-looking". It's a common requirement in Italian job ads (jobs where you have to tend to costumers and patrons) , but it wouldn't be considered acceptable a (openly stated) requirement in many countries outside of Italy, so there's no way of literally translating it.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

symposium said:


> "Di bella presenza" definitely means "good-looking". It's a common requirement in Italian job ads (jobs where you have to tend to costumers and patrons)


Exactly. 
Most employers won't admit that "di bella presenza" stands for "good looking", but they are aware people know what it means, so they are sure the message will get across.


----------



## symposium

I've always thought the meaning was obvious and clear, I just thought it was one of those obsolete and cemented expressions you often find in Italian ads, like "vendesi" "offronsi" "automunito" etc.


----------



## Pietruzzo

Paulfromitaly said:


> Most employers won't admit that "di bella presenza" stands for "good looking", but they are aware people know what it means,


I wonder why they need to mention it. It's implied that good looks matter, in Italy and everywhere.


----------



## theartichoke

I think I've seen North American job ads that stipulate "professional appearance." That might be as close as one can get if ever faced with actually translating an ad that includes "di bella presenza."

(Incidentally, I don't consider "personable" to have anything to do with appearance; to me it means "pleasant and enjoyable to deal with," a trait you really do want in anyone who has to work with the public.)


----------



## ain'ttranslationfun?

Like theartchoke, I see "personable" as describing a personality trait meaning 'friendly', 'likeable', 'affable', 'sociable'.


----------



## Passante

Comunque anche in italiano non è che sia solo l'aspetto fisico ma anche come ti vesti e come ti poni. Non sarà politicamente corretto, ma trovo molto puritano negare che per un commesso o un venditore un aspetto curato non conti. La bellezza non può definirsi in senso assoluto (è solo negli occhi di chi guarda), ma una bella presenza la può avere chiunque con un minimo di attenzione.


----------



## ain'ttranslationfun?

"Professional appearance/presentation" for me = well-groomed, well-dressed, no bad breath or body odor, friendly & polite. Sometimes we'll read "good (even 'excellent') presentation required".


----------



## ohbice

Passante said:


> Comunque anche in italiano non è che sia solo l'aspetto fisico ma anche come ti vesti e come ti poni. Non sarà politicamente corretto, ma trovo molto puritano negare che per un commesso o un venditore un aspetto curato non conti. La bellezza non può definirsi in senso assoluto (è solo negli occhi di chi guarda), ma una bella presenza la può avere chiunque con un minimo di attenzione.


Purtroppo non è così. Detto fuori dai denti, e con tutto il rispetto possibile, una persona con difetti fisici dubito possa mai rientrare nell'ordine della "bella presenza", nemmeno se fosse vestito da principe.


----------



## giginho

Ciao a tutti,

Ho letto attentamente quanto scritto nei messaggi precedenti e credo che non si possa prescindere da una definizione del termine "bella presenza" per trovare una sua traduzione in inglese.

"Bella presenza" in italiano, nel gergo degli annunci vuole dire (basandomi su alcuni siti di ricerca del personale e blog di cacciatori di teste):



> *Bella presenza è un’espressione utilizzata per indicare che per la posizione offerta è richiesta una persona che abbia una buona immagine.*


 Qui la fonte



> *Bisogna essere belli o belle per lavorare? Assolutamente no! *Non è questo il senso di questo requisito.
> 
> Nel gergo del recruiting essere di bella presenza significa:
> 
> 
> Curare la propria persona presentandosi al lavoro puliti ed ordinati;
> Non avere un taglio di capelli (ed ovviamente un colore) _coraggioso _ma pettinarsi in maniera corretta
> Non vestirsi in modo sciatto e disordinato
> Sorridere ed essere cortesi ed educati


 qui la fonte


Lasciando da parte quanto dice, per esempio, Paul ovvero che :



> Most employers won't admit that "di bella presenza" stands for "good looking", but they are aware people know what it means, so they are sure the message will get across.



Io credo checi si trovi in italiano nella stessa posizione dell'inglese: letteralmente, nel gergo delle assunzioni, "bella presenza" non ha nulla a che fare con la bellezza, in pratica, tutti sappiamo che se sei un bonazzo hai maggiori probabilità di essere assunto.

Per la traduzione, credo che  well-groomed possa fare al caso nostro.

P.S. I do agree with Paul: in practice, if you are awesome as fuck [cit.] (as you all are, of course) you'll have more chances to be hired


----------



## Passante

ohbice said:


> Purtroppo non è così. Detto fuori dai denti, e con tutto il rispetto possibile, una persona con difetti fisici dubito possa mai rientrare nell'ordine della "bella presenza", nemmeno se fosse vestito da principe.


Non sono totalmente d'accordo anche perché ci sono obblighi anche nell'assunzione (purché si abbia certificato medico di idoneità al lavoro) e a volte viene dato punteggio più alto proprio a chi ha handicap (e per fortuna direi), mentre la bella presenza impone che se anche non hai le gambe tu sia pulito ordinato e curato. Quello che spesso non è accettato è un deturpamento volontario che possa creare disagio come ad esempio un piercing eccessivo, un tatuaggio eccessivo e visibile una trasandatura spinta o igienicamente non consona ad un lavoro che presupponga di stare fra la gente. Se vuoi fare il modello dovrai avere certe caratteristiche non è che si può farne a meno ma per un normale lavoro che richiede la bella presenza non implica misure od età o altro che non sia un adeguato aspetto decoroso (penso ad un punkabbestia  magari bellissimo, ma con tutto il rispetto possibile per la categoria non lo assumerei per fare il commesso, ma se si lava e si veste in maniera decorosa non vedo il problema) . Ovviamente imho.


----------



## salgemma

La definizione del Treccani riportata per intero (Nubivago l'ha riportata solo parzialmente) per me risolve gran parte della questione.

_Aspetto esteriore, modo di presentarsi di una persona: una ragazza, un anziano signore di bella p.; con uso assol., aspetto gradevole e tale da fare buona impressione, *per lo più accompagnato da prestanza fisica*._

Quel "per lo più accompagnato da prestanza fisica" conferma che la percezione più comune (è anche la mia) del significato di "bella presenza" è quella di avere un aspetto fisico che viene considerato gradevole.
Sicuramente adesso si aprirà il dibattito su cosa si intende per "prestanza fisica".
L'Incredibile Hulk ha "bella presenza" o no?


----------



## beccamutt

I would translate it as "professional appearance" (in the US). You see this quite commonly. 

And while it doesn't directly mean "physically attractive" and such a requirement in a job posting would be illegal (in the US), it could also be vaguely inferred depending on the type of job being advertised.


----------



## Passante

beccamutt said:


> I would translate it as "professional appearance" (in the US). You see this quite commonly.
> 
> And while it doesn't directly mean "physically attractive" and such a requirement in a job posting would be illegal (in the US), it could also be vaguely inferred depending on the type of job being advertised.


Bello, mi sembra molto indicato e rispondente all'italiano a mio modesto vedere.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

beccamutt said:


> it could also be vaguely inferred depending on the type of job being advertised.



The only difference here is that it's clearly inferred, not vaguely.


----------



## salgemma

beccamutt said:


> And while it doesn't directly mean "physically attractive" and such a requirement in a job posting would be illegal (in the US),



Anche "bella presenza", come già detto, non significa sessualmente attraente, non ha niente a che fare con l'eccitazione sessuale, non si chiede di essere "sexy", cosa che, per un lavoro "comune", es. commesso/a di negozio, sarebbe impensabile (meglio, chi offre il lavoro potrà anche pensarlo ma non si azzarderà certo a scriverlo ).
"Bella presenza", in sostanza, è il modo, considerato politically correct, di comunicare che il lavoro non verrà dato a persone con evidenti difetti/inestetismi fisici, ovviamente valutati secondo i canoni di bellezza del posto (che per tutto il mondo occidentale credo siano gli stessi).


----------



## ohbice

Credo che una parte della confusione derivi dal sovrapporre in qualche misura "sessualmente attraente" e "bello".
Una persona è bella (un bell'uomo, una bella donna) indipendentemente dalla sua aurea sessuale. Quindi la componente sessuale non c'entra nulla, a mio avviso,  con "bella presenza". Ma "bella presenza" comprende un certa idea di bello, la quale idea di bello  non è veicolata soltanto da bei vestiti, bella acconciatura, mani curate, eccetera eccetera.
Questo, almeno, è ciò che penso io


----------

