The danger [of feminism] is that the study and contemplation of “ourselves” may become so absorbing that it builds by slow degrees a high wall that shuts out the great world of thought. – Rheta Childe Dorr
In 867 AD Saint Æbbe the Younger, the Mother Superior of a convent in Coldingham, Scotland, is said to have cut off her nose and urged her nuns to do the same so that approaching Viking raiders would find them repulsive and would therefore not rape them, thus preserving their chastity. Apparently, the plan worked too well; the Vikings were so disgusted that they burned down the convent. This legend and others like it (which are actually not unusual among hagiographies) is the probable source of the European idiom “cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face”, meaning to overreact to a situation in a petulant and self-destructive manner. Ironically, when I was researching this column I encountered a comment from a good, brainwashed little feminist who insisted that the story couldn’t be true because (all together now), “rape is a crime of power and control, not sex.” Obviously, 9th-century Scottish nuns must have known of and believed 20th-century American feminist dogma. And though this silly woman’s denial of reality is somewhat amusing, the more widespread feminist denial of reality is not; if anything, it’s quite sad. Feminist writers live in an echo chamber where nobody ever questions their highly-questionable interpretation of reality, so when someone comes along and states facts which are as obvious as the nose on one’s face yet contradict feminist dogma, the writers must attempt to shout those facts down. And if the knowledge would actually give women some advantage in the world, but would require abandoning cherished feminist beliefs in order to put it to use, modern feminists advocate following the example of Saint Æbbe.
Regular readers may remember Dr. Catherine Hakim of the London School of Economics, whom I mentioned in my column of January 11th in conjunction with her findings that, as I put it, “many if not most women are simply not interested in all-consuming, male-style careers and prefer to ‘marry up’ or take jobs which allow them to enjoy their lives and concentrate on their families rather than forcing them to sell their souls to corporations as so many men do.” Now she’s published a new book entitled Erotic Capital which outlines her insight that economists need to consider women’s erotic power as a form of capital alongside the three recognized (and unisex) forms of capital (economic, cultural, and social). She suggests that there is nothing wrong or immoral with women using their looks and sexuality to get ahead, and that one of the reasons patriarchal societies have suppressed women’s sexuality is to prevent our using that sexuality to our advantage.
Anyone in her right mind knows that women already do this, and anyone who really cares about the happiness and self-actualization of women should be glad someone with Dr. Hakim’s reputation and credentials has pointed it out. So of course feminists have greeted the book with accolades, pleased to see that young women are being encouraged to use their personal assets in order to succeed, right? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! You’re so funny! Of course they haven’t, because acting like women and using their female power are things women can do for themselves, without the help of feminist “leaders”, and femininity, flirting and being charming and sweet are anathema to a cult steeped in androgyny, misandry and neo-Victorian prudery. Furthermore, the idea that young, intelligent third-wave feminists and {gasp!} women who don’t identify as feminists at all might be able to use their feminine charms to outcompete aging, pudgy, bitchy second-wave feminists isn’t going to sit well with the latter, who are naturally going to reject the realization that if female sexuality is indeed a form of capital, they’ve been essentially using cash as toilet paper for decades.
So, how would you expect the Guardian, that bastion of responsible British journalism, to report on Hakim’s book? Why, by assigning an aging second-wave feminist to interview the author and a younger second-wave disciple to review the book, of course! The results reinforce nearly every stereotype about how women are supposed to hate other women, but of course these writers are just too busy spiting their faces to recognize what they’re doing to their noses. The interview by Zoe Williams is so awful I had to read it in three sittings; it’s like a cross between a Hollywood gossip column and Maureen Dowd on a really bad day. The second paragraph is representative of the whole:
We meet in Covent Garden, over fancy tapas. She arrives and says, “I must go and brush my hair,” which she really needn’t have done, because I don’t buy her theory. I don’t care what someone’s hair looks like, I find hair neither impedes nor accelerates a discussion about ideas. I did not say so, thank God, even in jest, otherwise our encounter could have been even worse than it was.
Because, you know, what a middle-aged feminist cares about is exactly the same as what a man cares about. And it just degenerates from there. The review by Elizabeth Day isn’t quite as venomous, but it’s bad enough:
There is so much to object to in this book that it is hard to know where to start…according to Hakim, none of that education or career nonsense that our mothers and our grandmothers fought so hard to give us access to carries much weight any more. In fact, as the fairer sex, our time would be far better spent getting a spray tan, slimming down our muffin-tops at the gym and emulating the “vivacious” personality of the glamour model Katie Price…That, apparently, is how we can earn more money (the most attractive among us, says Hakim, can earn 12% more than those dumpy trolls who haven’t made the effort) and enjoy more fulfilling relationships with those around us. I’m sorry. Did I fall asleep and wake up in the 1950s? Is Hakim seriously suggesting that prostitution should be legalised, that surrogate pregnancy is an untapped income stream for women, that pimping is a good thing (“a win-win arrangement”) and that the extent of human trafficking has been whipped up by the media to provide “the latest excuse for moral panics and crusades over the sex industry”. Yes! Yes, she is!
Prostitution legalized? The horror! Call out the Ladies Gospel Temperance League! I must admit it’s fascinating to watch militant feminists trumpeting their ignorance as wisdom; prostitution is already legal in the U.K. despite tyrannical laws “regulating” it, and as my readers well know the extent of human trafficking has indeed been exaggerated as an excuse for a crusade against the sex industry. Well, I guess you don’t need facts when you’ve got rhetoric.
Of course, not all female British journalists have their heads up their own bums; Samantha Brick, writing for the Daily Mail, points out that any woman with sense uses her looks and charm to get ahead:
…[Men] adore being flirted with, love to have their egos stroked and…yearn for the attention of an attractive woman…you don’t have to be born beautiful to learn how to use your erotic capital. I was a shy, overweight, dumpy child, who grew into a self-conscious, spotty, plump teen, the proverbial ugly duckling. To my surprise, at 16 I transformed into a swan…My confidence grew, along with my flirting skills, my social charms were finessed and, after years of being the wallflower — someone guys confided in rather than chatted up — I was at ease in male company.
…I discovered early on there is no such thing as a free lunch. It is a transaction between you and the man you are dining with. The food is irrelevant. Conversation, flattery, where you’re seated, who your fellow diners are, and, tellingly, who you’re introduced to are what’s important. In return, the man gets to sit with an attractive woman, who makes him feel good about himself…you grab every opportunity to trade on your erotic capital in order to benefit your own lot in life…Why anyone else wouldn’t behave as I did is beyond me. While I never slept with anyone, I deliberately wore outfits that the decision-makers appreciate…I’m sexually attentive to my husband and in return I know I can splurge…without guilt — I don’t have to justify or even hide my purchases…I’m 40 and have no intention of letting my erotic power diminish…Define what your best assets are: long legs, lustrous hair or even if you have a particular talent, exploit it. It’s time to be realistic because that is the way the world works for successful women.
I couldn’t have said it better myself.
One Year Ago Today
“The Biggest Whores” reports on the closure of the Craigslist “adult services” section, explains why escort services are rarely prosecuted even when individual girls are hounded, and speculates on why politicians hate us so much.
I encountered a comment from a good, brainwashed little feminist who insisted that the story couldn’t be true because (all together now), “rape is a crime of power and control, not sex.”
And bank robbery is all about gun play and face masks, not money
the latter, who are naturally going to reject the realization that if female sexuality is indeed a form of capital, they’ve been essentially using cash as toilet paper for decades.
My favorite line – I laughed so hard, I cried!
😀
I agree, that line is hilarious!
Yes, Hakim does mention the male use of “erotic capital” as well, though of course women have more of it. Of course, the neofeminist writers only took exception to women using their sex appeal, not men.
Great review. It’s patently obvious that these feminists don’t keep up with advances in sexology and psychology. Women using their beauty and charm to get ahead is as old as the Moon. It’s amazing what you can miss when your focus is so narrow.
Ah, and here I thought that I’d invented the phrase “as old as the Moon.” I even capitalized the M.
Ah well. It was too good a phrase not to already be in use.
Through much of history erotic capital was woman’s ONLY capital. “Beautiful and chaste yet fertile” described the ideal woman through much of the middle ages and into the industrial revolution (in the upper classes anyway, the peasants preferred women who would help in the fields). As I understand it the push to allow women to work was meant to change that. Disparaging uses of erotic capital might be overcompensating though. Of course a person with plenty of traditionally masculine AND plenty of traditionally feminine capital should be noted.
Unfortunately I can’t think of a lot of situations where one would focus on “erotic capital” primarily. If you’ve got a job you’re obviously going to focus on showcasing your talents actually relevant to the work as opposed to anything else. Seducing your boss could back fire.
Even in a relationship maximizing erotic capital is usually limited. Supposing you wanted a partner to be emotionally open and intimate with, somebody you could be yourself with, then feeling that you have to drop into ‘sex kitten mode’ every time they’re near is harmful. Even if you really are a sex kitten most of the time you still need a man who earnestly loves the non-sexy parts of you.
I guess this is just sexism at work, but usually coming off as ‘too sexy’ can prevent guys from taking you seriously. Unfortunately appearing competent at work can mean appearing to be ‘one of the guys’ often enough. Obviously ‘one of the guys’ doesn’t give anyone boners. I do recall reading about studies that illustrated this perceived opposition of competence and femininity, one of the big reasons women earn less money than men. Also there are a lot of (sexist) men who refuse to marry sluts.
Who said anything about seducing the boss? Studies in fact show that attractive people make more money than those who are not percieved as attractive. Just like men over 6′ tall are more likely to be in leadership positions than shorter men.
Yes, that is in fact “erotic capital.” You don’t have to focus on it primarily, but let me tell you – when I go into a sales presentation, I put a lot of thought into that erotic capital – my hair is done, my makeup looks good, and my clothing is just-so. My tendency is to over-dress and to look “too sexy,” but then in order for me not to look sexy, I’d have to look awful. It certainly hasn’t hurt my earnings, either as an escort or in the more traditional workforce. Since leaving off escorting, I’ve started and been successful at my own business, begun a non-profit, and entered a partnership in yet another business.
My colleagues and business partners consider my sexiness to be a tremendous asset. It has enhanced my earnings, rather than hurt them, in all aspects of my life. Women earn less than men for a number of reasons (the “mommy track,” a decision not to sell their souls to Corporate America) but while lack of attractiveness may contribute, being “too sexy” does not.
Lailah – it’s the Halo Effect. 😉
Unsurprisingly there’s no mention of Samantha Brick or any other like-minded woman agreeing with her and Erotic Capital. It’s a sad day for The Guardian when they get beaten by The Daily Mail of all rags.
Also lol @ Zoe Williams’s article not allowing the option of comments, even Hadley Freeman and Looney Julie Bindel allowed comments on their rants!
Day’s quote is hilarious. Hakim isn’t saying that women should not bother with being educated or working hard; she’s simply saying that sex appeal and looks are another tool in the arsenal, one women would be foolish to ignore. In other words, you can get a little further with a sharp mind and personal appeal than just a sharp mind.
The thing is, every professional woman I know knows this. They all “dress for success” which means looking nice (but not “slutty”) and regard this as simply being professional. I recently saw a talk about the glass ceiling by Sheryl Sandberg. She’s sharp, hard-working, cogent … and also attractive.
Looks are a part of this appeal but, as all men know, a positive attitude and personality can make a woman more subjectively attractive than she is objectively. In Gone with the Wind, Margaret Mitchell opens with this line:
Long ago, I worked with a woman who was, if you thought about it, not very attractive at all. But you couldn’t tell by the way she had every man in the place wrapped around her finger. AND she was the smartest one there. You can insert your own jibe about the personalities of radicals.
As Brooke noted, this works for males too. People take you much more seriously when you dress the part, clean up, shave, keep your hair neat, stay in shape. I found that cleaning up made students pay better attention. It’s not necessarily sex appeal, per se, but’s it’s a judgement on appearance. And one men are foolish to ignore.
I’ve always thought: heh, so and so looks good, when’s the snake oil pitch coming?
I’m a cynic 🙂
@ Maggie McNeill
Please accept my apology for being off topic, but I couldn’t resist sending this to you as you will find this very informational about prostitution especially about streetwalkers in 3 neighborhoods in Chicago. It seems 1 out of 30 “tricks” is a freebie to a Chicago Police Officer to keep the police from arresting the working girls. I laughed my ass off. I found the article through a a link at Vox Day’s blog titled ” To Protect and be Serviced” at
http://www.voxday.blogspot.com/ or http://www.voxday.blogspot.com
I found the full article at
http://www.chicagobooth.edu/capideas/apr0914.aspx
Yeah, there’s a name for cops demanding service to avoid busting streetwalkers; it’s called “rape”.
I agree. Now that I look at it that way, I should not have laughed. I guess it shows that the police are the real pimps despite them saying that they are so innocent, pure and trying to prtect and serve us is why I laughed. I apologize again.
I kind of disagree. I my friend was a hooker and a cop busted her, but said she wouldn’t go to jail unless she gave him a blowjob. Now, if you had the option of giving a cop a blowjob or go to jail. I don’t think paying your way out of jail as rape, because you still do have the option of going to jail if you are so against the “rape”. How is getting paid by a John for cash any different than “paying” to stay out of jail? How is paying to stay out of jail “rape”?
Let me modify your example, then maybe you’ll understand:
“my friend was a hooker and a cop put a gun to her head, but said he wouldn’t shoot if she gave him a blowjob. Now, if you had the option of giving a cop a blowjob or dying. I don’t think paying your way out of death as rape, because you still do have the option of dying if you are so against the ‘rape’.”
Clear now?
One of my first exposures to polyamory was a thing on HBO. There was some sort of workshop, and at the end each person was asked, “If you could be with anyone here, aside from your own partner, who would that be?”
The women named various men in the group, except one woman said “Clair.” The men, all of them, said “Clair.”
Clair wasn’t the prettiest girl there, by most standards of beauty. She wasn’t ugly, but she was heavy and had kind of a big nose and was only cute, not hot. But there was obviously something about her. Clair didn’t lack for erotic capitol, and I hope the other women didn’t hate her.
A woman has to do a very difficult balancing act to use her sex appeal or charm to influence her male bosses or co-workers, and still be perceived as competent and capable of exercising authority over male subordinates. As QuantumInc says, “I do recall reading about studies that illustrated this perceived opposition of competence and femininity, one of the big reasons women earn less money than men.”
I personally haven’t had this conflict, as my jobs were always low level positions in which I never supervised anyone, so I was free to be charming without worrying about being perceived as too girly to climb the ladder. I have seen other women struggle with this conflict; some try to out-macho the guys (which backfires as the men consider her a repulsive ballbusters) and some try to be a sweetheart boss (which backfires as the men don’t take her seriously and disrespect her). It’s lose-lose.
No, Catherine Hakim hasn’t found the answer to what persona women need in order to succeed; her way has worked for her only because her career is in academia, a highly politicized environment that has very different social dynamics from the for-profit private sector (I know, because I was a faculty brat in academia and an employee in the private sector).
Marla,
As a business owner, I have to disagree with you rather emphatically. I simply am myself – and I am kind, charming, and lovely. (I’m also able to be aware of my own assets.)
My personal charm has landed me a number of wonderful accounts, which I would not have been able to do had I not been … myself.
I really don’t care about out-macho-ing the guys. I’m the boss, they do what I say. I don’t care about being a sweetheart boss – I’m the boss, they do what I say regardless (or they don’t have a job) and I don’t sugarcoat things or the work doesn’t get done.
However, I know who I am, I like what I do, and I hire employees who get along well with me. I currently own one business, have a partnership in a second, and am the director of a non-profit. Yes, looks and erotic capital do indeed do a lot. It just may be difficult to see from the pettiness and politicking of an entry-level position.
Lailah, my experience was working in corporate America, defined as companies with at least 5,000 employees. I should have made it clear that I was talking about what happens in huge companies where the CEO is male, the board of directors is all or almost all male, so even female managers still have male superiors, and the employees are 70-90 percent male,
Obviously, it’s going to be different at a small or mid-sized business or non-profit with a female boss.
Lailah, if the businesses you own have more than 5,000 employees, then my apologies as my statements do not apply to you, and I want to know how you do it! : )
They do not yet, but I also have extensive experience in Corporate America per your definition. I have never seen what you have seen – except at the entry levels.
That may be the reason then, as the women I saw struggling with this problem were the supervisors of the entry level employees.
I should that I’ve worked in massively male-dominated industries (robotics, semiconductor fabricator, defense, aerospace) and the situation for women may be better in industries that have more female employees.
I’ve worked in public accounting (both Big 4 & midsize firms). It used to be a male-dominated industry, but it seems women are taking over.
I’m not sure if it was just my own bad luck, or if it is just a normal part of working with other women, but I constantly felt like I was in some psychotic episode of Mean Girls. Give me a male boss any day, even better if it is a “male” industry – the raft of shit to deal with was almost exclusively job-related and had little to do with politics or popularity contests.
Marla, I’ve never worked in corporate America, but I can tell you that if my boss is pretty and friendly I pay a lot more attention to her (i.e. in following instructions), and she could be dressed in overalls and clod hopper boots. I’ve been in classes with beautiful and non-sexy women who had complete authority in the class.
And I’ve seen it in hospitals too. When a pretty nurse goes in to care for an elderly man, you can almost see his interest in living improve. I believe the latent sexuality (nurses certainly don’t dress sexily) is enough to make him want to live. I believe in letting escorts work in hospitals, under the staff’s guidance of course.
guinevereschampion, as I said to Lailah above, my experiences are probably affected by the fact that I’ve worked in industries that are extremely male-dominated. It’s totally different for a female nurse in an overwhelmingly female profession.
That makes me think… I wonder if “escort privileges” for well behaved inmates would inspired better prisoner behavior…
Male-on-male prison rape would greatly decline if male prisoners were allowed to have sex with escorts, I believe. Some male prisoners would rape anyway because they are psychos who enjoy torturing others, but many male prisoners would leave other men alone if they could have sex with a woman.
Hi Marla,
I’m of the opinion that if the only sex you have is same gender, then you are gay. Some of them could be bi I suppose.
But yes, for the men who could afford it,, I think it’s a great idea. Having regular sex does seem to lower levels of hostility.
Gawaine, the reason men in prison have only male-on-male sex is that women are not available to them! How does this prove they’re gay, or even bisexual?
I suggest the prisons pay for the escorts in order to reduce male prison rape. Most prisoners can’t pay for it themselves, since they are locked up with severely limited income possibilities. It’s worth the cost to reduce rape.
Unfortunately, prison officials are largely uninterested in reducing prison rape; most of them suffer from a punitive mentality and seem to believe that rape is part of the “punishment” of prison.
I find this curious, my friend. I can’t make love to a guy no matter how horny I am. Besides, as far as neuroanatomists are concerned, gayness (male and female) is inherited.
Is she actually advocating hooking, or is she merely advocating the Machiavellian combination of teasing men, making non-verbal promises she has no intention of keeping, and trying to goad frustrated men into saying something she can punish as harassment, that the most hated women in the business world have always done to advantage? Such practices are a form of fraud at best, and I have no respect for those who do them.
“In return, the man gets to sit with an attractive woman, who makes him feel good about himself…”
I would be very cautious doing business with a man like that.
I’m just encountering this for the first time, but am compelled to comment because so rarely do I get a chance to say my opinion about Catherine Hakim, who has always been a really lovely, polite and engaging person when we meet in spite of the fact we sometimes disagree (we’re out of sync re: our opinions on the relative value of biological science vs social science – no surprise given our respective academic backgrounds).
By contrast, a lot of the people slamming her are simply awful and have no knowledge base from which to criticise her to boot: Zoe Williams who interviewed her in the Guardian for instance… who once accused me of being a man before I came out, in spite of the fact her mum and the Secret Diary producer are friends and I knew full well that Zoe knew I existed. But she could not resist an easy target who at that point couldn’t speak back. Seems to be her style. ZW also called me ‘retrograde’ and ‘Victorian’ on a television documentary that aired all over the world – again, from a position I could never answer the charges. (And this from a woman whose only contribution to the book world is a collection of columns about what happened when she accidentally got pregnant twice. Being privileged enough to spend her time writing the occasional lady-issues column and, from what I hear, spunking book advance money up the wall whilst getting work off your mum’s connections must be awfully nice. Some of us, Catherine and me included, have worked damn hard to be able to write about the topics we do.)
It’s the unfortunate case that publishing and media in the UK is a small world indeed and you have no not only toe certain ideological lines to get in but also be so privileged and removed form the rest of the world. If the Guardian/New Statesman/whatever lady coterie decides you’re evil, they don’t even bother to read the book. I had one interviewer who coincidentally also trashed Hakim admit she hadn’t read mine. Nice, eh?
Catherine and I were on a panel discussion about erotic capital earlier this year and I was amazed at how people attacked her. As a social scientist I think people get her wrong: she’s not saying erotic capital is “right” or “best”, she’s saying it’s “what is”. This simple observation makes some folks really, really upset while others just wonder what the fuss is all about – of course it’s the way things are! Some people don’t want to hear or believe that part of success might be down to being attractive and confident and people pick up on that. Equally, try telling them someone who is not a “10” but still projects physical, erotic confidence will read as attractive to most people, and they don’t believe that either. Denial – not just a river in Egypt!
There was a flurry of self-satisfied applause when some audience member primly put forward that she though we “shouldn’t” be judged by appearances. Well, none of us want to – I suspect even Angelina Jolie has had that thought from time to time. But being judged is the way it is and I am consistently surprised how people pretend it isn’t. Such as say Zoe Williams, who even went so far as to ridicule my looks after I *did* come out, and ridicules Catherine too – irony, right?
Just wanted to get that off my chest and thought you might appreciate the anecdotes 🙂
Very, very much so. And I can’t say I’m surprised one bit!
I’m surprised no one said anything about what is glaringly obvious to me from the interview: it was hate at first sight. Regardless of the inherent validity or invalidity of either of their arguments, is it really that surprising that Hakim was uncooperative with a woman she perceived as being there only because she was out to get her? I’m not sure whether Williams was displaying hostility deliberately or if she was simply too blinded by it to realise she was being obvious or if Hakim was simply prejudiced towards assuming that Williams would be hostile. Whatever the case, the result was the same: an interview that reads amusingly like a petty catfight. A disappointing example of journalism, but amusing nonetheless.
And ironically, it kinda proves Hakim’s point. We all judge people and our presumptions affect both how we perceive them and how we treat them. Silly little Zoe just assumed that Catherine was advocating that we actively judge people based on appearances rather than simply suggesting a practical behavioural strategy based on a fact of human nature.