E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Getty Images
Women with brains and beauty -- like Christina Hendrickson from "Mad Men" -- are not encouraged to use both, says a British social scientist. But they should.
“Erotic capital” isn’t a Vegas hotspot. It’s a person’s innate sex appeal, an asset that is just as important to economic and personal success as education or social connections, according to British social scientist Catherine Hakim. Everyone, but especially women, should exploit it to the max, she says.
Hakim’s new book, the provocatively titled “Honey Money,” might seem at first to be a manifesto arguing that all women ought to become Hooters babes. That’s the way some have portrayed Hakim’s ideas.
But that’s not what Hakim wants, as she noted in an academic paper published last year. In short, Hakim is appealing for everyone to stop pretending that sex appeal -- a combination of style, looks, social skills, and attitude -- doesn’t matter. It does, but somehow, when it comes to women, success (however that’s defined) owed in some measure to sex appeal is bad.
The idea of using both one's brains and erotic appeal -- think, oh, Catherine Deneuve or, maybe bombshell Christina Hendricks from "Mad Men" -- has been given short shrift, Hakim argues. "Either a woman is valued for her human capital (her brains, education, work experience, and dedication to her career) or she is valued for her erotic capital (her beauty, elegant figure, dress style, sexuality, grace, and charm). Women with brains and beauty are not allowed to use both.”
That's not exactly true, of course. Just have a look at TV news anchor people. I was once interviewed by Natalie Morales on TODAY and could barely function; she's got a heap of erotic capital. She is also smart and skilled at her job. All these aspects are important contributors to her success, but few women feel comfortable acknowledging their sex appeal has anything to do with their careers since it is seen as not being part of "merit."
Men don’t have to deal with this either/or problem. Nobody accuses David Beckham of selling out or being a less competitive athlete because he poses in underwear. But when female Olympic athletes use their sex appeal, they are condemned as anti-feminist.
Hakim argues that “erotic capital is rising in social and economic importance today” in response to our increasingly sexualized society and that it “gives women an advantage, and is a key factor in women’s changing status in society and the economy.”
It might be accelerating now but as Hakim points out in one example, high-status women have never been afraid of using their sex appeal. “Diplomatic wives clearly deploy erotic capital in their social activities. We argue that erotic capital has greater value when it is linked to high levels of economic, cultural, and social capital.”
In “Rapture,” my book about biotechnology and the quest for immortality, a woman named Deeda Blair, a beautiful and fabulously connected Washington D.C. doyenne, was contacted by another important mover named Mary Lasker, founder of the Lasker Foundation, a prestigious medical charity. Lasker wanted to mount an attack on high blood pressure, so she called Blair “and said do you know anybody who knows Elliot Richardson,” then secretary of health education of welfare under President Nixon. Blair responded: ‘Well, two nights ago, there was a party at the British Embassy and I spent a large part of the evening waltzing between the columns with him.’”
The campaign was funded. That’s erotic capital.
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/BrianRAlexander
Want more weird health news? Find The Body Odd on Facebook.
Leave a Comment:
Hakim asks right in the very beginning of her book, "Why does no one encourage women to exploit men whenever they can?"
Suppose a man said, "Why does no one encourage men to exploit women whenever they can?" Would he be taken as seriously as Hakim is? Or would he be run out of the country?
By "exploit men," Hakim means women should flirt and tease their way to success.
But in effect she is telling women to create a hostile work environment in which men are exposed to an even greater risk of sexual-harassment charges.
Any feminist who goes along with this should be called sexist.
For an in-depth look at the sexes' most destructive behavioral difference, see: "The Sexual Harassment Quagmire" at http://battlinbog.blog-city.com/the_sexual_harassment_quagmire_digging_out_with_true_equali.htm
Maybe because men already exploit women whenever they can. Look like she is just wanting to level the playing field since you will never get men to stop exploiting anyone let alone women.
Well that is stupid.
Complain about being exploited, then exploit yourself and complain....Look ladies, go one way or another. Either A) no exploitation of anyone or anything or B) a free-for-all...expliot and be exploited as long as it gets you waht you want.
@ Sandy - two wrongs make a "right", right?
How about this, we all start actually appreciating the differences between the sexes. And stop being envious and jealous in regards to what the other sex "brings to the table". guess what women; men are generally stronger physically...GET OVER IT.....And men, guess what; women are better at dealing with emotions, etc..GET OVER IT....
"Why does no one encourage women to exploit men whenever they can?"
I thought this was genuinely known and accepted enough not to require any encouragement.
Good looks is always an advantage in business. No one needs to read a book about it. Has been the case since Adam and Eve. If someone wants to call what John Hamm or Christina Hendrickson have as "erotic capital" and sell lots of books with that term then good for them. I think its simple good looks.
Sandy,
Leveling the playing field with sex appeal is the wrong way to do it. It just re-enforces the objectification and exploitation of women. I find the very concept appalling and it's not just because I'm an ugly male.
Erotic Capital?? As a man, I'm insulted by the insinuation that a woman could somehow use her physical attractiveness to garner more attention or get what she wants. I mean, how ludicrous, how absolutely appalling that this author would think that some beautiful bombshell could waltz up to me in a tight little outfit and lowcut top and bat those gorgeous eyelashes and flash those pearly whites and it would be more effective than when Bill stops by to deliver the mail. It's unheard of, it's so nonsensical I can't help but feel sorry for all the women who are going to be duped into thinking that somehow looks can somehow sweep men off their feet and make our jaw drop to floor and paralyze us for five seconds and forget what we were talking about while we wipe the sweat off our forehead and try not to stare anywhere below the eyes. Stupid, stupid article. Who's going with me to Hooters for lunch today?
Not me, but hilarious rant. :)
I don't know SH123 but it always worked for me. I'm a sucker for a pretty face. And a great ass...
I don't have enough blood to work both heads at once.
Wow...This has got to be one of the most sexist articles I've ever read. It totally feeds into the mindset that if a woman isn't sexy, she isn't anything at all.
Mr Alexander, stop thinking with the head between your legs, please!
No he doesn't say that at all. What he is saying is true, if you have both brains and beauty you shouldn't be shy about using them.
In reading the article, Mr. Alexander is talking about sex appeal, not sex. In dealing with a member of the opposite sex (male or female), who commands your attention more? Someone well dressed, well groomed and intelligent, or someone sloppily dressed, poorly groomed and intelligent? Personally, I would initially be more attracted and attentive to the former than the latter. Isn't the initial impression that a person makes the one that lasts, and isn't that what ultimately will make one more successful in their business endeavors? Successful men have traditionally done this in business - a well fitted suit that flatters them, well groomed and exuding confidence. Why shouldn't a women do the same without being labeled in a negative way?
i think its sad that women are the biggest enemies of equality. as a man, im ok with the fact that a woman should use everything she has to gain what she wants. men do all the time. that doesn't mean that a woman is less smart, less talented, less of a human being. it means that she has power and presence in a different way. in fact, the only time that bothers me is when they get called out on it, and they deny it. women want men to stop exploiting them, but when women try to exploit men, they're anti-feminists.
lets face it people, men and women are different but equal. not the same and equal. once everyone comes to realize this, i think the better off all of us will be.
Please fix the caption under her picture. Her name is Christina HENDRICKS not HendricksON.
I am a woman, but I am nothing like Catherine Hakim. Women like Catherine Hakim are the reason almost none of my friends are women.
Most women are bitches, pure and simple, and they are getting worse. They are catty, hateful, two-faced, shallow, materialistic, selfish, and rude. The idea that "if you aren't sexy you aren't anything" is propagated by this type of woman, to whom fashion, makeup, hair, and shoes are everything. Stunning on the outside, nothing below the surface. I truly pity the man who falls for this kind of woman.
I have a problem with women who have a problem with women.
I do not understand how anyone - especially a woman - can sit there and say terrible things about the very people who are most likely going to understand her best. I don't think everyone can be painted with the same brush. Yes, there are many, many women who are superficial, materialistic, and mean. But the same holds true to men. There are many PEOPLE who are superficial, materialistic, and mean. In my experience, the woman who says such hateful things about other women and states that most of her friends are men because of it, is usually the woman who is trying to sleep with many men, and feels threatened by another woman being around. :0)
I do not "sleep around with many men," nor do I feel "threatened by another woman being around." Most of my friends are men because I can mentally connect with them better than I can most women. Men and women can be friends without sex getting in the way. A woman can be a valuable friend to a man without being a sex object. I think you have your own issues with women by assuming that a woman who is friends with a lot of men must be just a party favor they pass around.
Looks, money, confidence.
The stool.
Looks is the most important. It can lead to having the other two.
If you don't have looks, you need more of the other two to compensate.
How is this news?
And thats why you get paid less
I cannot believe this article hasn't been yanked. Thanks for catapulting us back three decades.
I want to be hired, appreciated and promoted because of my ability to do the job, not because of my bra size or my willingness to flirt or play up to "handsome" men (as obviously you believe only handsome men hold any power because of their "erotic capital").
Get a clue, and get your head out of Natalie Morales's @$$.
Three decades? Try five decades!
So a smart, sexy woman might be able to get more accomplished when using both brains and beauty??? Next you'll be telling me that a smart, strong man can get further with brains and brawn. This is some kind of witchcraft suggesting that each gender can better benefit when they play up their gender related strengths combined with intelligence.
Methinks that all the weak men conspired with all the ugly women to make us all believe that intelligence is the be-all-end-all and that physical appearance/performance can't exist with mental acumen. All the uggo's need to hit the gym or makeup aisle, and all the hotties need to hit the library. Let's all be the best we can be.
Upvote for using the word 'acumen'.
From the files of "Well duh!" Unless deep in the bowels of a religiously repressed workplace, and even there exists a grey area, dressing sexier and more alluring will help anyone fast track their career. Man and woman alike. You can't check out in the grocery store without seeing 10 magazines with photoshopped models and headlines for how to look sexier. No big leap to understand why companies and managers across the US would prefer to have a better looking person representing their company than someone who only has the skills to get the job done.
Is it right? No. Is it the way it is? Unfortunately, yes. If you don't like it, stop supporting companies who operate this way and make a statement.
Come on ladies, if you had enough brains, you wouldn't have to use anything except your brains. You leave the market place, have kids, stay home and when you decided that you want to come back into the market place, you want to move to the top, instead of putting your time in, work hard, learn the business, and make it thru merit.
Heck no, flash the boobs, wear the short skirts, lay your boss. Use anything but your brains. That is why men exploit you, because you ask them to, or that is your way of getting what you want.
For years studies have indicated attractive people earn more. Yet, a fair workplace pays people for the value of the work. Obviously, most workplaces aren't fair, or else, being attractive is a part of the job. But if that is explicitly expressed, it can lead to lawsuits. Trading opportunity for sexual favors is also risky. Pressure for sexual relationships is also a problem. If attractiveness is more involved than "dressing for success," (e.g. flirtation), then the advice is really a formula for trouble.
Sounds like "use it if you got it."
But erotic capital is just another tool and does not explain successful powerful women like (love them or hate them), Margaret Thatcher, Indira Ghandi, Golda Meir, etc...
just think how more successful and well known Mother T would be after a nude centerfold!
Women don't need to exploit anything but Mafia mentality and they buy into it hook line and sinker because they love it so much - what a waste of life and potential - but it is yours to waste.
I used to wonder about the men that used to rate the looks of female celebrities. They seemd to only crow over the ones that were so thin, flat and shapeless that it almost as if they had the shapes of 12 year old boys. Then the tabloid type news programs began showing these 'men' that for so long been the fashion judges. I no longer wonder about it. And that's all I think I should say about THAT.
OMG What an utter load of crap!
Woman USE their 'sexual capital' EVERY day and in EVERY way. Go into ANY corporate office to see it in action. A woman can be the most incompetent person in the company but if she posses 'double d's' and has a a large collection of dresses and blouses showing cleavage she will be successful within that company and will even get raises.
And don't even get me started on socializing. Woman with 'sexual capital' can walk into ANY BAR IN AMERICA and get totally smashed for free. And she does not even have to be 'model pretty' most any guy will purchase drinks in return for a bit of attention. and those are just the most immediate examples that come to mind.
What a load of tosh ..........
A friend of my husband's once said to me: "You could have slept your way to the top". I was really surprised he said it so casually and I never thought of myself that way. It would be so beneath me. Women have fought way too hard for career opportunities to have this drivel coming from whoever this Hakim is. To be sure, some women get there the easy way but they usually find it's just as easy easy to fall from that perch they f*d to. We can be sexy, we can work. We can work, we can be sexy. But don't take that "it's the same thing" brush and try painting ME with it.
I wish I had boobs! :|
Crapola to the max
Is "erotic capital" a smart move to make in order to manipulate a transaction in this world? Yes. Is Hugh Hefner erotic capital? Yes. Do many males think it is considered cool to have sex with as many females as possible? Yes. Is this ground-breaking? No. Should we do more to change the way things are...innovate? Apparently not according this particular author. Way to keep with current not-so-perfect ideology. Thinking inside the box...now there's a profound author.
.