On a Friday afternoon in 1977 I got my answer. My looks would play a pivotal role in my chosen career. Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on your world view, my news director told me my looks were all wrong for television news. He spared nothing: not my hair, not my makeup,not the features on my face.

Net Net: my looks were not showing up in the asset column of my career ledger.

For a 26 -year- old, it was a devastating realization that while my bosses rated my reporting skills as superior, those skills were simply not as important as my appearance.

The "unflattering" Hillary photo this week is forcing many of us to think about our own attitudes about beauty and what role it plays in our careers.

I can't help but think that if a 1980's lawsuit had turned out differently, the photo would not be part of our national conversation.

In the 1980's, TV Anchor Christine Craft sued KMBC-TV in Kansas City for allegedly using different standards for judging male and female on-air broadcast news anchors.

At the time, Craft was eight months into a two year contract at the station. However, she got some unfavorables in focus group research.

Craft was informed that she had been demoted to reporter because focus group research had indicated that she was "too old, too unattractive and wouldn't defer to men."

At the time Craft was thirty-something. In the court case, the jury awarded her $500,000 in damages.

The judge threw out the verdict and called for a second trial.

Craft won again:Metromedia appealed. At that point the 8th Circuit Court threw out the second verdict and the Supreme Court refused to hear the case.

Had Craft's victory stood thirty some years ago, we would probably be having a very different conversation about the "Hillary Photo."
There would probably be more concern about the fairness of showing that kind of closeup of Hillary, while sparing the guys from the same telescopic scrutiny.

For me, the Hillary picture wouldn't be problematic if there were similar photos of exhausted, bone -weary male candidates. Running for office is exhausting. Surely, there are times when even the most handsome of the group look less than their camera- ready selves. But by focusing on HIllary's exhausted appearance and not offering up the exhausted photos of the other candidates, the media is focusing on Hillary's looks from a different lens.

The Bad American has done an in-depth analysis of the stock photos available for the current political candidates to see if the camera's are looking for the same things with various candidates. He used Yahoo News Photos for his analysis.

Is it just me or does it seem like so many photographers are taking pictures of Clinton for Matt Drudge? Let’s see how goofy and embarrassing we can catch her seems to be the aim here. Or am I totally off base? Am I looking for something that’s not there. Again, look at the other candidate’s front pages. Or is Hillary just a total clown candidate who just can’t help launching into a regular Goofy imitation? Seriously, how many male candidates get this kind of treatment? And John McCain is allowed to have wrinkles, eh? But not Hillary Clinton. Would it help matters if she was a beauty queen? Oh, but then the press would feel the need to take her down a peg or two wouldn’t they? But they wouldn’t dare do that to any of the ’serious’ candidates (Kucinich excluded - its been open season on him for awhile). No there seems to be a double standard with Hillary Clinton’s looks. Because she’s a woman. Tell me I’m wrong.

Had the courts not overturned Christine Craft's victory, perhaps our youth-beauty obsession may not be at quite the fervor it is.

Perhaps instead of focusing on the fact that this is not a picture Hillary will want to include in her photo album, we would instead say, "Let's compare the exhausted photos of the other candidates." And, if there are none, it should raise some questions -- why are we focusing on HIllary's exhaustion and not anyone else's?

Had corporations not been given a free pass by the courts to have different standards in judging women and men who appear on our airwaves,we would have had thirty years to adjust to the concept that the standards used to judge a woman's ability to do a job need to mirror the standards used to judge a man's.

Had Craft's case stood, businesses maybe there would be fewer News Bunnies on the airwaves and more women with deep journalistic skills.

Had the courts agreed with the juries that Craft was discriminated against,maybe we would be spared rankings like the TOP 10: Hottest Women in Tech, compliments of xiaxue's blog.

The proliferation of scientifically minded women has proved instrumental in this shift, as the majority of contemporary tech pundits seem to belong to the fairer sex. Stranger still, many of these women possess the kind of looks one normally associates with supermodels and A-list actresses -- which, admittedly, is a great way to capture the interest and attention of a garden-variety nerd. While there are certainly a number of drop-dead gorgeous ladies within the world of tech media to choose from, we’ve narrowed the list down to 10.

The reality is Craft's case was thrown out and corporate America was given the clear message that women and men,at least as far as their appearance go, can be judged and treated differently.

Rush Limbaugh asked the question,

"will this country want to actually watch a woman get older before their eyes on a daily basis?” Added Rush “men aging makes them look more authoritative, accomplished, distinguished. Sadly, it’s not that way for women, and they will tell you.”

Actually Rush, I think if surveyed, many would say women age better than men. Ask any group of women who return from their high school reunion and you'll typically hear that the women looked great, the men, not so much.

Not sure what Rush is basing his theory on ,but let's just nip it in the bud. While Rush's comments were politically motivated, their are implications for every crone and every woman in the workforce who is approaching crone status.

If our nation can't stand watching Hillary age as president, does that mean shareholders should not have to deal with an older woman on the board or in the executive suite because she has too many wrinkles?

It would be easy to ignore Rush's idiotic statements as well, idiotic. But this is the man who brough femi-nazi into the lexicon and his rants need to be taken seriously. He can do damage.

When Rush says our society can't deal with watching a woman age on the job it takes me back to that news room 30 years ago when I listened in despair that beauty trumps talent .

If this were simply an issue of vanity then it wouldn't be worthy of discussion. But it's the linking of beauty to one's ability to do a job that is so disturbing and so discouraging.

Have your looks helped or hindered your career?

Are you concerned that as you age your employers will treat you differently then men of the same age?

Elana blogs about business culture at FunnyBusiness