Hugo Schwyzer is infuriated by the insinuation that men are more interested in a woman’s cleavage than her intellect.
Never mind your tanking 401K, or the astronomical price of gold. How’s your erotic capital? According to Catherine Hakim, a professor at the London School of Economics, erotic capital is a combination of “beauty, social skills, good dress sense, physical fitness, liveliness, sex appeal and sexual competence.” Both men and women have it, both men and women can use it, and – according to Hakim’s new book, Honey Money (already published to much controversy in the UK, forthcoming here in the States), those who use it effectively can make a hell of a lot more money.
It’s not news that gregarious, attractive, and well-groomed people tend to be more successful. On a basic level, as Hakim herself admits, this is simple common sense. No one disputes that a basic sense of style can be helpful in life, and there is indeed research that suggests that good-looking (but not too good-looking) men and women are more likely to get hired and promoted. But Hakim doesn’t stop with this recitation of the obvious.
Women have more erotic capital than do men, she writes, because of what she calls the “male sex deficit”: the fact that men want sex far more than women do, particularly after the age of 30. (If you happen to be a heterosexual woman with a ravenous libido, and you were born before 1981, stop reading now. In Hakim’s worldview, you’re a unicorn.) Men’s desire, Hakim says, is one key source of every women’s capital – and ought to be valorized at least as much as education.
♦◊♦
At the end of her introduction to Honey Money, Hakim asks “Why does no one encourage women to exploit men whenever they can?” The pretense that this is a book about good manners and dress sense drops away. Forget social skills, forget fashion; it’s sexual desirability (either with or without concomitant competence) that’s a woman’s ticket to success. According to Hakim, political correctness and the unholy alliance of Puritanism and feminism (the twin villains of modern life) have led to a generation of women coming of age with no clue about how properly to take advantage of men.
Hakim’s thesis is as insulting to men as it is to women. What she’s hawking, with her crude call for women to exploit the “male sex deficit” to their advantage, is the hoary old myth of male weakness. That myth suggests that men have such a strong sex drive that they can be easily manipulated by women. The myth of male weakness is why we often cast more blame on the woman who sleeps with the married man than on the dude himself; the myth of male weakness is why we blame scantily-dressed women for “distracting” innocent men on the street and in the workplace. Women, as Hakim insists, aren’t that interested in sex to begin with – so they don’t have the same vulnerability to lust. But men’s frailty is women’s opportunity, she reminds us. And it’s an opportunity women shouldn’t be ashamed to seize.
Because men are so weak, good looks and flirtatiousness – the basic currency of erotic capital – don’t just supplement a woman’s intellect. Rather, they can serve to cover up deficiencies in ability or experience. The power of erotic capital lies in men’s willingness to choose sex over anything else. Play your cards right, Hakim seems to be saying, and a male boss will promote you to a position for which you are unqualified based on his attraction to you. Exploit the male sex deficit, she suggests, and your sex-starved professor may just give you a grade you haven’t earned.
♦◊♦
I deal first hand with young women who’ve bought into this message. At the beginning of a new semester, I often have female students who try to “flirt their way” into a closed class. Less frequently, some young women will use their sexuality to get the academic attention they’ve been taught to believe a male professor will not give them otherwise. A couple of years ago, I had a very bright student mentee who, when she first came to see me, was aggressively flirtatious, using her erotic capital for all it was worth. “Allee” showed up in a miniskirt and low-cut top, and made rather obvious efforts to brush against me.
It got so bad that I had to put a stop to it. I looked her in the eye and said “I care about you, your work, and your life. I’m not interested in you sexually and I will never allow our relationship to become sexual.” Allee flushed pink for just a moment, and then her body almost sagged with relief. Where once she had come to see me in full make-up and stilettos, she began coming in sweats and Reeboks. Allee seemed much more at ease, much more trusting, and we continued to work closely together for nearly two years until she transferred.
Allee knew she was sexy; she’d been hearing it since she was twelve. She had had plenty of bitter experience with older men who were interested in her body and little else. Unsure of her own intellectual abilities, she was convinced that her “erotic capital” was her only valuable asset. She desperately needed an older male authority figure who would be uninterested in her sexually – and passionately excited about her other gifts. That’s not Puritanism, that’s professionalism and common sense. I know damn well I’m not the only male professor capable of that.
It’s not a hostility to sex that makes me angry at Hakim’s notion that women should use their erotic capital to exploit men. Rather, what’s so infuriating about her thesis is her ugly insistence that men are never really as interested in a woman’s intellectual gifts as in her cleavage. While there’s nothing wrong with encouraging young people to be gregarious, polite, and well-dressed (match that belt to those shoes, kids!), there is something immensely destructive about suggesting that women’s professional success hinges on their ability to manipulate men sexually. For young women, the celebration of “erotic capital” is a disheartening reminder that their hopes of being taken seriously for their intellectual gifts are almost certain to be dashed. Hakim’s message about men is worse: no matter how professional we may appear, in the end she thinks we’re fragile, conceited, sex-starved and easily bought with a flash of cleavage and a little flattery.
“Honey Money” is a recipe for misery and mistrust for everyone.
About Hugo Schwyzer
Catherine Hakim sounds like a sexist after my own heart.
I consider myself a man going my own way and this story feeds directly to all my fears of sexual Darwinism. It’s gotten to the point that the notion of a man raising another man’s children fills me with so much anger that I can’t see straight.
I don’t know maybe I should quit this addiction.
This reminds me of Lisa Bloom’s blog post on “How to talk to Little Girls” — how instinctively people will congratulate girls on how cute they look and base everything around their appearance. It starts really early.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-bloom/how-to-talk-to-little-gir_b_882510.html?ref=fb&src=sp
Do women have a lot of sexual power? Yes.
Should they use it to exploit men and climb the social/career ladder? No.
That would be demeaning to both men and women. No one should be exploited and women should gain success through hard graft and initiative, rather than flirting/sleeping with the boss.
Hear hear!!! Thanks for saying so!
I love you Hugo, but I don’t agree with the use of the word “exploit” in this context.
One cannot exploit the willing. Men who elect to succumb to this “erotic capital” nonsense have no one to blame but themselves.
Jim, it’s Hakim who uses the term “exploit”, and I’m merely quoting her. I’m objecting not to the possibility that men may be exploited, but to the idea that we should raise our daughters to try to do so.
Well said and this column mirrors many of my sentiments.
I am both appalled by women who will attempt to use their sexuality to get ahead and the assumption that I am somehow controlled by my libido.
At the end of her introduction to Honey Money, Hakim asks “Why does no one encourage women to exploit men whenever they can?”
If she is asking that question I want to know where the hell she lives. Women are taught to work on their sex appeal in order to gain access to power and men have been taught to amass power in order to have sex with women (which is why while as much as that latest Summer’s Eve pissed me off there is at least some truth to it). And what happens to those who don’t follow this script? Women who don’t play their part have their womanhood questioned (“why don’t you want to look sexy?”) and men who don’t play their part have their manhood questioned (“what kind of man are you for now wanting this?”)
Who’s the women in the header image? Wait, did I just prove something to be true here…
Personally, I thought the author was saying that women should be able to sell sex and profit from it just like athletes sell their physical prowress and are able to profit from it.
All this nonsense about women using their sexuality to “get ahead” in the non prostitution world is b.s. That really wasn’t what the author was talking about as I read it.
Also, I think any of you that have trophy wives or don’t think that a young woman aiming for a trophy husband and using their looks to get said husband (think wives of athletes for e.g.) is equally wrong (based on your arguments) are hypocrites.
I do think that young and hot women have erotic capital. I think that to level the playing field and to make up for the fact that erotic capital is a diminishing asset over time, it is suppressed.
Well that’s the beauty of embracing single-hood. You don’t have to justify your conniving motives to anyone. You accept that human beings are in large part exploitive social climbers and you chose to prostrate your self for their exploitation or you get out of their way and let someone else catch that ass whoopin’.
BTW…. If this women us right, then every women should exchange various levels of sexual experiences for financial stability.
That sounds a lot like prostitution to me.
It also sounds a lot like marriage…
So, women shouldn’t use what gives them an “advantage”? Got it.
Would anyone advise men in this way?
Yes, people are inevitably going to use whatever means at hand to ensure success, oftentimes regardless of possible detrimental long-term effects on that individual and/or those in society-at-large . I think there’s a significant difference between accepting this as a sad reality of a competitive society and actively encouraging it. I also don’t see how actively discouraging this behavior is anti-female, unless anyone not in the aforementioned “young, hot” demographic doesn’t really count.
Augh. I don’t even know where to begin.
Women don’t love sex? We don’t lust? Are you serious right now? Does that make a unicorn? Or just someone who doesn’t buy that bullcrap any more and listens to herself instead?
And then everything else. Men can’t think past their dicks and women are about as useful as their push-up bra. WTF.
So, do you want to provide so solutions, Hugo, or you just going to sit there and blog away?
Sexism is bad, but what’s worst are men who making money bemoaning the sexism that women face, yet not doing anything else about it other than bemoaning.
I think in my interaction with Allee and others like it, I made it clear what a solution is — construct a different way of living. Not rocket science, but common sense.
Clearly you missed the class on long- and short-range planning. “Construct a different way of living” is a desire – an end state, not how to get there. So until you offer something, you go down as yet another person, much like many other feminist writers, who make a money whining about sexism, but offer no solution.
Your whining is grating. Either come up with a plan, get your hands dirty and work with the men and women who need changing, otherwise you’re just preaching to the choir. Women don’t need a lecture on the existence of sexism, and feminist men don’t need to be told that certain actions are bad — the ones who need to be changed are the ones who don’t even read your writings. So, go out there and get some real work done, because right now, you’re but a scum feeding off the murky waters of sexism.
Marc, I think that just by starting a dialogue and getting people to think about male/female professional relationships differently is a great start. And he probably makes his money as a Professor, not as a blogger, so your point is not really valid. Also, as a professor, he’s putting into practice what he’s talking about, as he stated above.
So, why don’t you quit complaining about bloggers and do something constructive.
I would comment, but I had to quit reading in the third paragraph. But hey! I had no idea I was actually a unicorn! That’s kind of cool.
I’m confused about the “particularly after the age of 30″ part. It’s my understanding that male libido goes down over time. A friend’s husband went to his urologist to discuss his libido problem, and the urologist said, “Welcome to your 30s!” I know it’s anecdotal, but every single woman I know in her 30s who is married to a man in his 30s is bitching about her partner’s low libido and her raging desire for constant sex. Again, not scientific, but…every single one. Every single lady I know is a unicorn! But also, the doctor says this is normal.
This must be a typo.
It’s not, it’s Hakim’s thesis — after 30, women care more about babies and decorating and less about sex, so older men are more sex-starved than younger ones. I agree, it’s a whopper on all counts, but I assure you, it’s her position as you can read in many interviews with her…
I’m reminded of high school health class. Our teacher, a former football coach in his 70s, said while discussing sexuality, “You know, boys, someday you will just want to snuggle with your lady. Go for walks, hold hands.” The 14-year-old boys looked like he might as well have said, “You know, boys, one day you will die.” I just sat there and giggled at their horrified expressions.
This reminds me of a recent exchange with a friend’s boyfriend. I was visiting her from out of town and made a joke about how we should go to the strip club we’d gone to in her city for my bachelorette party (that’s right–a big group of girls went to the stripping ladies club for my bachelorette party, and it inadvertently turned a few into lap dance addicts for a few weeks–UNICORNS!). Her boyfriend said that he didn’t like strip clubs. “All those women taking advantage of those poor men.” I said, “Really? Because the men didn’t choose to be there and once they see boobies they loose all choice in what to do next? They just HAVE to give those ladies money for those lap dances?” He shut right up and started backpeddling.
So does that mean people can also stop trying to pass the illusion that in the strip club environment the women that strip are being taken advantage of?
In my opinion, in those situations, no one is taking advantage of anybody. But in my opinion, the only reason anybody views stripping as different from, say, being a banker is puritanical sexual ethics and gender inequalities (gender inequality tends to drive sexual repression and oppression).
“the fact that men want sex far more than women do, particularly after the age of 30.”
Surely you mean before the age of 30 here.
See? Casey is a dude, and he knows what’s up.
Wow, this is a very complicated topic to comment on.
I agree that we shouldn’t raise our daughters (or sons, frankly) to believe that their worth is dependant upon this ‘erotic capital’ so much as the sum collection of their strengths, intellect, values and such. The world will, no doubt, teach the lesson of sexual self-promotion…as long as kids have a good foundation of their real net worth, they will conduct themselves in an appropriate fashion.
As adults, however, how we choose to (consensually) engage ourselves is our decision. Let’s break it down in a more material term: I like a sweater. So much, in fact, I have gone to the store to look at it, twice. I want it, but I am unwilling to pay the high price. So, what are my options? I shut up and fork over the cash, or I find a sweater whose price I am wiling to pay.
While in my personal view, it’s unfortunate that we live in a world where position can be advanced by sexuality, it’s a reality, and if you’re comfortable with the price, that ‘sweater’ can be yours!
I’m kind of a pragmatist. Aside from all the ethical and moral problems with using one’s sexuality to get ahead, I wonder how it could really work practically as a long-term strategy. It seems like flirting and using sex appeal is like offering a promise that something will happen in the future. At some point, someone will expect you to deliver on the suggestion. At some point someone, like the man who hired you, will be convinced that you really do want to sleep with him. If men are only interested in sex, then it stands to reason that the men who hired you will simply find someone who will have sex with them. If we’re going to indulge in idiotic stereotypes like men only care about sex, let’s go all the way and indulge in the fantasy that men are totally fickle creatures – they’ll fire you the second someone more attractive comes along.
And, of course, if you do have sex with him, your erotic capital will then plummet.
Secondly, there is all that energy, time, and resources spent on your appearance, no doubt some of which could be better spent on other, more marketable things. All that time shopping could have been spent towards getting an MBA. All that time flirting at the office, when learning a little golf could open some doors. All that time spent on make-up, when you work online at home and no one sees how you look. (Save a lot of money and just get a fake thumbnail photo of an attractive woman for your online picture. Voila.) Looking ravishing is not going to help you when the first round of the job application process only looks at your resume.
“I care about you, your work, and your life. I’m not interested in you sexually and I will never allow our relationship to become sexual.” That took guts. I would have been afraid of a sexual harassment charge being raised.
I agree. I would recommend in such cases that you cover all your bases by letting other people know. Leave the office door wide open, and avoid being alone with her. Let your dean and other faculty know the student has been acting like this, maybe even the VP of Academics, and use a letter or e-mail with them to make sure there’s a paper trail about it. The fact that other people can see her coming to your office dressed like that multiple times can be dangerous for your employment just by itself. Assume that everyone sees what’s she is doing and sees that you are not stopping it. Hugo did the right thing in putting a stop to the behavior, but you never know exactly how that student is going to react to that.
I want to join the conversation, but I’m really distracted by looking at those nice big boobs in the picture above the blog.
I can’t tell from the photo how intelligent the young lady is. All I can tell is that she looks cold.
Her intelligence is very…um…symmetrical. Her personality and sense of humor are both…er…well-rounded.