Brilliant sum up on debate about whether beautiful people should use their looks to get ahead. Catherine Hakim argues that ‘erotic capital’ should be exploited to get ahead in the board room and the bedroom. Should ‘ugly’ people be protected like minorities?
(Time HealthLand) Should Being Beautiful — or Ugly — Pay Off?
Beauty, or lack thereof, seems to be the topic of the week.
Sunday’s New York Times started it off, with an op-ed arguing that ugly people should be protected under the law like other minority groups. Sociologist Catherine Hakim disagreed, contending (and promoting her new book Erotic Capital) that discrimination is a part of life and that women should use their looks to get ahead. Too bad for those of us who aren’t gorgeous.
Then, controversy erupted over a girls’ T-shirt being sold on J.C. Penney’s website. The T-shirt, which was printed with the message “I’m too pretty to do homework, so my brother has to do it for me,” was immediately criticized by consumers for being sexist, and the store pulled it from the site.
It appears that the idea that beauty — or ugliness — should pay off doesn’t itself seem to be attractive to many.
Also see Do Beautiful People Really Earn More Money?, Are Pretty People More Selfish?, Do You Procrastinate Because You’re Secretly Afraid Your Work Won’t be Perfect? and Are Relationships Between Attractive Women and Ordinary Men More Likely to Fail?