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
“Erotic capital” is not much more than a justification for prostitution, and whether one invests one’s capital in an office or on a street corner is only a differentiation of locale, not ethical standards. Erotic capital is, at best, a wasting asset. Once the cruise ship has left the dock, unsold cabins are worthless; when the wheels lift off, unsold airplane seats are worth zero. The acid test for this kind of rationalization for what is nothing but ancient patters of behavior is if one would council one’s 14-year-old daughter to capitalize on her erotic capital. Alas, there are enough weirdos that we see 8 year-olds provocatively dressed, even entered in special beauty pageants that pander to pedophiles of all genders.
TMI:
Am I the only that’s thinking, “If it wasn’t for the back of the chair being visible in the back of the shot that could look like she is sitting on a toilet.”?
“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.”
Men start to want sex more than women do after 30? Forgive me, but not only does this claim run counter to my own experience, it flies in the face of the idea, which I understand still to be current, that male horniness peaks at about 16 and declines thereafter. (Only a few more years and I’ll start getting nostalgic for the good old stereotypes, the ones I grew up with, the ones which are dependable, dammit.)
“In Hakim’s worldview, you’re a unicorn.”
Hm. First time I’ve ever been called a “unicorn”…
But that horniness is replaced by a seemingly neverending pursuit to “prove he still has it”. And for those of us following the script of being a man what better way to show we still have it than to show that we just as sexually powerful in out 60s as we were at 18? So while male sexual prowess may decline after the teen years notice how the market for helping men continue to have strong sexual lives in their late years has blown up over the last decade (I’ve seen feminists complain about how Viagra is covered by insurance plans but an equvalent for women is not).
Before older guys were buying flashy sports cars to prove they still have it. Now they can just pop a pill (although having the flashy car still helps to get to the point of popping the pill).
Well join the rest of us “unicorns”. Personally, i always thought sex was in the brain. i think women become more sexually liberated as they become older, not the other way around. At least that has been my experience or maybe i just found the right person with the right sexual energy, but he is a smart, thinking man. Just curious;why are intellectual, and pretty women dangerous?
It’d be very hard to distangle the erotic from everything else. As a professor, I feel pretty safe with women who are attractive and not so smart, but an intellectual pretty woman is a danger, I’ll admit.
For some reason, the vast majority of people I mentor are women. But I guess they can tell I’m not responsive to stilleto heels, because no one ever shows up wearing them.
I distrust efforts to remove the (light) erotic and flirting from social life because I think that they’re part of the Purtian backlash we’re stuck with right now. The more the media “appear” to embace the erotic, the less we actually are erotic. Too bad.
I don’t see a Puritan backlash so much as a highly pornified culture where young women have less sexual freedom to do what they themselves want than they did twenty of thirty years ago.
This kind of thing depresses me so much. It’s just a sad retread of the advice girls used to get about using their sex appeal to land a “good catch.” Maybe that was true in the days when women were economically dependent on men. These days, there is no excuse. That said, when I was doing a lot of temping in offices in my early 20′s, you bet I got jobs because the VP or whoever thought I was young and attractive. It happened — it isn’t hard to tell when someone is hiring you because they are attracted to you — and I didn’t complain, because I needed jobs. But I was glad to leave those days behind. Sure, I’d love to look like a 25 year old hottie, but the compensation is that I’m judged on my other merits and not treated like nothing but a man’s fantasy object, and that’s a relief. In my 40′s, I feel like I’m treated as a whole person at last (though I still like it when my boyfriend says I’m hot, don’t get me wrong!)
And by the way, in my relationship I’m the one who always wants more sex, while my boyfriend seems content with a less frequent schedule. This whole idea that women lose their libido after age 30 is just WRONG. I like sex now more than ever.
Yes, women’s desire increases with age. Until menopause. This was a tough time for my wife and me. Her libido went to zero, and stayed there for about four years.
Some women do, some don’t. I’m sorry that happened to your wife. I worry about that, maybe more than wrinkles and grey hair. I’m hoping to keep my libido going strong as long as I am physically capable of having sex! Personally I think a lot of women lose their sex drive when they stop feeling physically attractive. Not sure if there is a solution to that, other than keeping a positive attitude about life. And fluctuating hormones can take their toll, do ‘t get me wrong. It happens to middle aged men too….
Soooo, older women lose their libido.
Someone needs to tell that to the group of 70+ (and when I say + I mean that some were into their 90′s) women in a therapy group at a social center. One week, a lively chatter went silent as I entered the room. I sat there for a minute and asked why they clammed up. After trading smiles and blushing a bit, one of them asked if it was okay to talk about sex in the group. The words, “of course” hardly left my mouth when they opened up a wonderful discussion of age, sexuality, libido and missing sex. Not missing WANTING it; missing having it. Many of them were widows or had husbands who weren’t interested. It ended up being a focus of the group in various degrees until I left.
Of course, this is anecdotal, but it was a fairly diverse group of ladies, ethnically, culturally and financially. I was already aware of the false assumption many have about older people and sexuality, but this really brought it home for me.
I couldn’t pay attention after the photo but the answer is yes to whatever you asked.
While I wholeheartedly agree with your thesis that women shouldn’t beguile us with their luscious tatas and visually-pleasing hip-to-waist ratios. However, we live in a world where good-looking people are more successful. Hard work and the 7 habits of highly successful people go a very long way, however, every person is born with certain skills and assets and it’s up to them to make the most of them. Obviously, it’s unfair and creepy but it’s unfair that tall men tend to earn more money and creepy that older men with money do really well with young, attractive women.
Nature has a few tricks that our greater-than-the-animal logic and egalitarian sensibilities haven’t been able to consistently overcome. Men are physically stronger. Women can have babies. Testosterone facilitates risky decision-making. Oxytocin brings us closer. Smiling releases serotonin. Yawns are contagious. We do our best to overcome our baser instincts but we’re a collection of impulses and hormones. Periodically, our very human parts are in charge. Sex sells. Intimidation is sometimes needed. I wouldn’t specifically tell my daughter, niece or sister that she needed to shake her money-maker to get ahead just as I wouldn’t tell my son, nephew or brother that they needed to solve problems with his fists. Occasionally, sex or violence (or the promise thereof) are a necessary evil.
What Hugo told his student was amazing and I’m very glad for her that she took it to heart.
I’m guessing that Hakim’s thesis was originally far less extreme but not something that was going to move books and get her on BBC. It would be dynamite if we could have something worthy of discussion without veering into the realm of salacious but that would be wildly missing the point, right?
Just like you couldn’t pay attention after the photo, I couldn’t pay attention after “luscious tatas”. It’s not hte attraction to breasts that’s the problem. It’s the fact that a grown man uses the word “tatas” and still expects to be taken seriously.
Yes, you should only use the word “tatas” if you are raising money to fight breast cancer. In that case, be sure to use pink lettering to reinforce the point.
Waxing poetic about beautiful breasts or whatever the Erin-approved term is when he’s saying something obviously tongue-in-cheek would have sounded even more ridiculous. Although men love having women try to regulate what we’re allowed to do once we’re grown-ups, we really are capable of regulating ourselves.
It’s not a matter of trying to “regulate” anything. And taking it in that context does us both a disservice Rick. I didn’t tell him to “next time do x,y and z instead”. I just told him my reaction just like he shared his reaction. Good Man Project fights against the gender stereotypes that men aren’t any better then over grown frat boys. And I love that about Good Man Project. But if we want that message to be consistant, then we need to also look at the kind of words we use about each other and about ourselves.
I wish more men felt like Hugo but I just don’t see it in my own world. It seems that a lot of men let themselves be guided by sex appeal and even encourage it in women. Is that all men want? No. But I don’t see many men encouraging women to be kinder at the rate I see men encouraging women to have perfect bodies.
Hugo: “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.”
I think A LOT of girls need an older male authority figure (who isn’t someone in her family) who shows interest in her as a person and not as a sex object. I think that would do a lot of positive things for how men relate to women and how women are shown to relate to men. Just as young boys need male guidence. So do girls. Clearly in different ways but too often women and girls are so overly sexualized men either avoid it all togehter at all costs, or indulge in it too much happy not to treat girls and women anything more then a toy there for his happiness.
I agree across the board with this, Erin. I’m in the military and it’s awkward and embarrassing to watch men in their 30s fall all over themselves to talk to an attractive young 18-year-old. I don’t really know that this is something culturally fixable, unfortunately.
I think Hugo did exactly the right thing, here. I also think, however, that his advantage is in knowing that he has fairly high erotic capital himself (based on the stories he tells). So he can be confident enough to tell a young woman she should stop flirting with him because he knows exactly what it looks like. A less socially astute professor (or other male authority figure) may half-hope but not be certain that a young woman is flirting with him because, hey, who doesn’t want to feel attractive? And of course it’s hard to say anything because one doesn’t wish to seem presumptuous. A very difficult situation to be in.
I think it’s culturally fixable. Because it’s something that’s been overly culturally embedded into us. Some people will still like younger or older people and that in itself isn’t wrong. But when you have 30 year old men that been fed the message that they don’t have to grow up until their 40, and that women have been taught since their childhood that their beauty matters most about them, that’s not about biology. If we require more of men, then I think more men would be happy to raise to that challenge. I think men really want to be strong leaders. Not supplicant to fears and worries or mistreaters of women. But if society doesn’t require any of us to do our part, the cycle continues. And we all see how well that’s working out for the world.
Of coures, everyone wants to feel attractive. But if a 40+ year old professor needs to find validation of his sexual worth through his female students, we aren’t talking about a totally strong or healthy individual. And it’s once again putting the woman in the role of pure sex object. And this is exactly the type of thing women don’t need more of. We need good men. And we need authority figures that see us for more then our bodies and are going to treat us with respect because they want to see us succeed in world as people, not as sex toys. Because they want to create better relationships between men and women. It’s important so I will say it again, just like younger boys and men need older male guidence, so do younger girls and women.
I think another force at work (in regards to men at least) is the belief that until a certain age you just aren’t worth anything as a man. Well its really not age so much as how much wealth, power, status, etc… can attain. So while there are men out there that are waiting for the world to fall into their laps at 40 there are men that have been busting their asses since 20 while being written off being “too young”. Depending on the man (and what messages he’s been fed) its going to sometimes take expecting more of men in some cases and helping others realize that they don’t have to have the world under their thumb to be considered attractive. And yes that second one is going to require women to recognize that having the world under one’s thumb is not a requirement for a man to be attractive, similar to men recognizing that women shouldn’t have to look like beauty queens to be attractive.
But if a 40+ year old professor needs to find validation of his sexual worth through his female students, we aren’t talking about a totally strong or healthy individual.
Then we must look at what led to this man becoming such a weak or unhealthy individual. As I say above I can totally see such a professor (as a young boy) being constant fed the notion that he is not desireable because he doesn’t have any sort of power, money, status, etc…
I think a key step to getting more and more of these good men you say we need is to stop treating them like they are nothing unless they have a narrow set of things to attract others with.
I don’t understand why Hugo insists on placing the blame entirely on men each and every time he writes a piece.
Where does Hugo think men get their ideas from?
Let’s look at some evidence: it’s pretty obvious that when Charlie Sheen walks around with his “goddesses” they’re not interested in his intelligence or personality. It’s fairly obvious that Anna Nicole Smith didn’t really marry J. Howard Marshall because of his amazing conversational skills. And on a personal level, it was obvious time and again when I was a freshman in high school that at least some of my female classmates were more interested in dating seniors because they had drivers’ licenses and cars than because they had just really great senses of humor.
As a human, I can only work with my personal observations, and whether they were of public figures (Donald Trumps wives) or my classmates (funny, you didn’t even know his name before he was a quarterback), I was bombarded with images of women happily, and voluntarily, trading sex for status, power, and privilege.
In Hugo’s example, “Allee” does this because she’s had “bitter experiences with older men who were only interested in her body.” Yet Hugo just assumes the men became bitter in a vacuum. The reality that the men themselves had likely experienced bitter relationships with women who were dishonest about what they really wanted (I’ll flirt with you for X), doesn’t even enter Hugo’s picture.
I’m not suggesting that this is all the fault of women. In honesty, I believe the fault must be shared equally because both sexes perpetuate the problem. Girls and women affect boys in their formative years just as surely as boys and men affect girls during their formative years. Hugo would do well to admit this at least once.
Men get their ideas from other men. Therefore it is a men’s problem. Who reinforced those images out there of ‘images of women happily, and voluntarily, trading sex for status, power, and privilege,’ men. Who bought it? Men who end up objectifying women and women who end up objectifying themselves as only ‘worth sex’. Without feminism and placing responsibility back where it belongs women will continue to fall into this pattern that they are worth nothing but their looks. I’m not saying throw a fit and continue blaming men, but a patriarchal society IS responsible for this and that is no doubt.
So, to be clear, in your opinion a woman who decides access to Charlie Sheen’s money is worth putting up with his insanity bears ZERO responsibility for how she is perceived by the public?
When I was 14 and my classmate decided she could flirt with me instead of doing her own chemistry lab work, I’m just supposed to pretend that didn’t happen and be totally unaffected by the message it sent me (to say nothing of my own emotions)?
I’m sorry, but at some point people (men and women) must be held responsible for how their actions affect others.
I was every bit as “informed” by my own bitter experiences in chem lab as “Allee” was informed by her experiences with men. To claim otherwise dehumanizes me.
A woman (or ANYONE) doesn’t have control over how other people perceive or treat her, only her own actions whether to put up with his insanity.
If you were hurt nobody can deny that. But whatever bitter experiences you or Allee had with women/men blame isn’t to be cast on any individual but instead the system. The root of the problem isn’t there because everyone has already adopted the model and are just playing their societal roles.
Anyway, I’m not saying it is any individual man’s fault but patriarchy in general. Once we assume that one gender is “better” or more capable than another that gender benefits the most but also hurts everyone in some way.
So, what you’re saying is “the patriarchy” removes your need for personal responsibility.
Welp, whatever you need to tell yourself.
No….I never said that thank you for warping my statement. It does not remove ONE’s need for personal responsibility. Only that patriarchy is the root of the problem and it is wrong to attack individual men and women on this issue.
So:
Men get their ideas from other men. Therefore it is a men’s problem.
Anyway, I’m not saying it is any individual man’s fault but patriarchy in general.
does this mean that patriarchy is code for men as a group? I hope not.
But seriously you go from saying its men’s problem because we’re the ones perpetuating it but when Mike challenges you you respond by saying its the system that should be blamed. How simultaneously holding men and women both responsible for it?
No women are not responsible for the root idea that manifested through male force and control. That isn’t to say that they are not responsible for their actions now.
What’s insinuating to me is why men STILL cannot own up to their own sense of privilege and entitlement.
Glad we got that straight. I’m all for holding people responsible for what they do/don’t do. My problem comes in when people then try to hold someone responsible for something just because they have a certain characteristic. Like in your next comment below. I’m more than willing to own up the things that actually apply to me but that doesn’t I’m going to pretend that every little thing that’s wrong under the moon and stars is my responsibility just because I rolled an XY on the Chromosome Dice Shot.
Do male entitlement/privilege exist? Yes they do. But does that mean they account for the bad things men and women do today?
To your last question… No it doesn’t, you’re right. I admit that while reading Mike’s comment some of my feelings came up on the fact that some men still refuse to recognize and give up their privilege by pushing responsibility off to women. When I first read “Where does Hugo think men get their ideas from?” my initial thought was “how could women possibly be responsible for the ridiculous idea that men are better and that women can only be recognized for their looks?”
Its cool. This is a heated topic already and people tend to bring their own fire. But I do agree that it’s unfair to hold today’s people responsible for a system that predates them by many, many, years be they man or woman, just because they are a man or woman.
This woman wrote this book because a lot of the time it works. It’s not the sexy that does it in the long run, it’s compliments and smiling at men that does it. It’s a finesse thing, though. You can’t be too obvious.
When a person manipulates you well, you’re not supposed to know it. And most of the time you won’t until much later.
Now, whether or not it should be done, depends on whether you’re a kill or be killed thinker or you just get so sick of competing over every little stupid f-ing thing. If you can’t tell, I’m in camp #2.
Ms Hakim is not a salaried member of staff of the LSE – never mind being a professor of anything.
Good to see the debate about male and female roles and interactions in society, though I baulk at giving this feeble guff any airspace. It’s like something straight out of the 50s. Jeez.
Hakim sounds pretty anti-sex. Women don’t want it so they should use it to manipulate men? That’s a very cold-hearted view of sex, love, and men.
She’s also missing the big picture – we all age. If you build your success on your body, someday you’ll be left with nothing.
Excellent article, Hugo. Thanks for writing it.
I’m clearly a unicorn.
I don’t buy into her argument, but I feel like a lot of the world still does. Women can still use their sexuality to their advantage in their careers and personal relationships and it happens around us all the time. I think erotic capital exists, though I don’t think women should use it to cover up for their intelligence, etc.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/8741895/Frenchman-ordered-to-pay-wife-damages-for-lack-of-sex.html Just came across this article and thought it would interest contributors to this debate. Whilst I’m not convinced that in my own country (Britain) this same judgement would have been passed, I do wonder if this is further evidence that men are expected to want sex whenever they can get it. I can’t imagine a wife ever having to pay these same damages.
I love it when woman try to appeal to my sex drive rather than to my intellect. Or that they think one will over power the other even though I have years of not having sex with everything that has a little decolletage, and years of experience that have taught me even a great ass will pay the same amount and wait as long as anyone for their wont.
I love beautiful women – I’m a poet, I need them really – however, I am never so foolish in the eyes of heavy flirt and swaying skirts to entangle my life in pursuit of something that would be improper for me to have.
I am a UNICORN!!!
Oh look, I can see her chair.
The problem with your argument is that you’re one of the good apples…and there are more bad ones than good ones.
“Why does no one encourage women to exploit men whenever they can?”
Umm…because exploiting people is wrong? I know it happens, but it certainly isn’t something a Good Person consciously and intentionally *tries* to do, IMO.