Catherine Hakim - Honey Money: The Power of Erotic Capital

[Bonsoir]

Reviews here

Oh Biological determinism is rubbish. At least that stuff about men spreading their seed. There's rather more evidence for women being inherently promiscuous when fertile to get the best sperm - so men have been trying to insist that women are the monogamous clingy ones in order to protect men's interests...
Anyway, this book sounds a load of no-shit-Sherlock drivel. People who are attractive and charming generally get on better than people who are hostile, ugly and smell. Who'd have thought it?

So - wonderbras in
degrees out

Well a wonderbra is cheaper. Take that capitalism!

at "People who are attractive and charming generally get on better than people who are hostile, ugly and smell."

The basic premise isn't really worth discussing is it, it's just truism. Erotic capital is a stupid term, it's not erotic is it, it's personable, charm, ease of being with - of course people prefer the company of someone who is charming and easy to talk to, but when the chips are down, if the one who is hostile, ugly and smells is better qualified for the job and fits in better with the company, s/he's the one who will get it, unless it's for a job where the way you interact with other people actually directly influences a major part your job performance.

I would argue really vociferously with the idea that men want sex more than women. Some men want more sex than some women, some women want more sex than some men. Mostly how much sex you want, is determined by all the other things that are happening in your life, so it's not as if it's biologically determined anyway for the most part - it's socially determined.

Is the tagline "Make cocks twitch and you can take over the world"?

Oh FGS!

None of this is new research. It is very well known that tall people earn more on average than short people. Women swapping sex for money and favours from wealthy men in positions of power is not new either.

Problem with this entire thesis is that it assumes men are stupid. The men who are willing to enter into such a transaction know perfectly well what is going on. They are not mindless dupes ready to be manipulated by women batting their eyelids. Women who base their career or indeed entire life on using their sexual capital will very quickly find that all capital has a price. It is very bad advice indeed.

The possibly anecdotal/apocryphal Winston Churchill quote sums it up:

Churchill: Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?
Socialite: My goodness, Mr. Churchill? Well, I suppose? we would have to discuss terms, of course?
Churchill: Would you sleep with me for five pounds?
Socialite: Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!
Churchill: Madam, we?ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.

Why oh why does everyone bang on about women having this sexual hold over men? Are men not sexually attractive to women? Charming men with piercing blues are pretty hard to resist IMO and I'm pretty sure I've fallen in love more times than I've been fallen in love with.

Yes it's that stupid MRA thing about how women "own" and gatekeep sex isn't it - like all men are gagging for it all the time, women don't really like it and only do it as a negotiating tool and so all women have to do to achieve equality, is to use their sexual wiles to get men to do their will. Well guess what, apart from that being a really depressingly bleak view of both men and women, courtesans and glamour models have been doing that for centuries and I don't see the patriarchy come smashing down any time soon. Seems to be quite an ineffective tool, if equality is what you're after.

It's worth mentioning that what is considered beautiful/ attractive is a social construct and it is construct that is purposely not attainable by most people. Yet women especially are encouraged to try and achieve whichever look deemed as attractive, even if they never, ever can, hence it being called in a pyramid scheme, only a few at the top will ever win.

I wouldn't mind in principle if a person used their looks to get ahead, if any of your other talents were held in as high esteem.

What about me, I have a face like a smacked arse but I sing beautifully - hows about that accountancy promotion, then?

There's a lot of moralising about what ought to be on this thread.

The point, surely, is that Catherine Hakim is pointing out what is. And we al need to learn how to get ahead in the RL as opposed to fantasising about how we would like the world to be to suit us...

Bonsoir - that pretty much is the point of feminism, how things ought to be and not settling for anything less, particularly when it's a load bollocoks which manages to be demeaning to men and women.

Nicely put Goth!

Another vote for Goth. Did someone mention French women being better off? 3 words - Dominique Strauss Kahn.

I was given that book to review, but it annoyed me so much I didn't bother with it. Zoe Williams did a much better job

The concept is as old as primates, never mind humanity.
The phrase 'erotic capital' has been in use for at least 30 years, yet Hakim seems to want us to think she invented it.
Attractive men AND women have an advantage in business and social life; this has been proven over and again.
It does not apply especially to women.
Packaging it as a women's issue is anti-feminist, for reasons outlined by others above.

Emperor's new clothes, and not very well stitched either.

No, that is not the point of feminism.

Catherine Hakim isn't pointing out what is.

Like I said before, women have been using erotic capital for centuries, and it hasn't precipitated the collapse of patriarchy.

So erotic capital isn't actually worth very much.

I like your longer name, HB

Um, I think you'll find it is Bonsoir

Loved, loved, loved the Zoe Williams interview.

I also agree with the point BetaDad makes. It does assume men are stupid and that pisses me off.

So if I brush my hair and put on a bit of lippy and simper a bit suddenly the world becomes my oyster? Hardly.

And why call it erotic capital if it's nothing to do with sex?

YY Sinical

I think the most interesting thing about this book is how much attention it's getting, given how shit it appears to be.
The media is just desperate for an outspoken woman antifeminist to lionise right now.

Interesting. Marking place...

I work in a job where my appearance is important - but that more means being smart rather than anything sexual. Simpering would probably be detrimental tbh. I am respected for my knowledge and skills rather than erotic capital, but I probably do use erotic capital in a jokey way (to get overworked Config Manager to prioritise my work over other peoples).

My problem apparently is that people find me overbearing (according to my appraisal), which I read as don't like assertive woman who won't be patronised /shouted down by others

... unless you are overbearing, Norma?
One of my own flaws, I hasten to add!
I worked on it. Not always successfully.

I do worry that the meeja and govt seem to be pushing some rather 1950s-style messages about women atm. Could it be related, as it was then, to freeing up more jobs for the menz?

Great - a as soon as I step into the feminist subject for the first time.

sigh

.

Oh, heck, didn't mean anything really horrid! Sorry you were upset/pissed off.