Teenage girls instinctively grasp the concept of erotic capital. That's why they spend hours in front of the mirror, practising their eyeliner. They know there is a hierarchy of looks, and they know roughly where they stand. One in a million of them will grow up to be like Barbara Amiel – a woman who is genetically endowed with beauty and brains in equal measure, and worked ferociously hard to parlay those assets into fortune and fame. (To be sure, she's had her share of rough spots.)
Barbara Amiel Black is a classic example of a woman who has used her looks and sexuality for economic benefit. More of us should do exactly that, argues Catherine Hakim, the author of a ferociously debated new book called Honey Money: The Power of Erotic Capital. Exploiting our erotic capital is a legitimate – indeed admirable – way for women to level the economic playing field.
"Anyone, even quite an ugly person, can be attractive if they just have the right kind of hairstyle, clothes, and present themselves to the best effect," Ms. Hakim told The Daily Beast. "This isn't a frivolous spending of money. It has real benefits."
As you can imagine, Ms. Hakim, a sociologist at the London School of Economics, has stuck a stick into a hornets' nest. Some people are accusing her of setting back the cause of women 50 years. On the other hand, some of what she says is unarguably true. I'm thinking of two female economists. Both are highly placed and extremely smart. One looks like a dowdy 60-year-old schoolteacher. The other looks like a hot babe, gives good bytes and markets the hell out of herself. Guess which one gets on the evening news? Is that a bad thing? Not really. It's just the way the world works.
In an image-conscious age, the tyranny of lookism is more inescapable than ever. A ton of research shows that tall men are more successful than short men, and that good-looking people earn more than ugly ones. Can anybody doubt that Sarah Palin got so far because she's sexy? Personal attractiveness pays off in all walks of life – even feminism. Take Gloria Steinem, a pioneer of women's rights who also (and I say this with admiration) had the luck to be a major beauty. Ms. Steinem is a brilliant, highly influential woman. But she wouldn't be so popular if she'd looked like Betty Friedan.
I discovered the value of erotic capital as soon as I started working as a waitress during university. I quickly learned that I was able to enhance my earnings by flirting with the customers (women as well as men). Wearing miniskirts helped, too. I made far more in tips than the plump, older waitress who'd been working there for 20 years and whose feet hurt. I realized this was cosmically unfair. I also realized I should definitely finish my degree.
Ms. Hakim bashes feminists for downplaying the importance of beauty and sex appeal. But none of the younger women I know have bought that message anyway. They seem quite comfortable – in a way my generation never was – with combining sexuality and assertiveness, both on the job and off. Their social skills are phenomenal. Fortunately, few of them aspire to marry a millionaire. I regard that as progress.
The basic difference between men and women is that as we get older, our erotic capital wanes. Men's erotic capital – providing they achieve power and success – only grows. As Gloria Steinem correctly observes this is why men tend to grow more conservative with age, and women tend to grow more radical.
Catherine Hakim does not believe in growing radical. She believes that the correct response to aging is to work like hell at looking good. She approvingly quotes Christine Lagarde, the chic new head of the International Monetary Fund, who says she'd rather exercise than sleep. As for those unfortunates who run to fat, she has nothing but contempt. "There is no excuse for being fat," Ms. Hakim says categorically.
The trouble is that staying chic takes an awful lot of effort (not to mention money). You must be upper-middle-class to do it, and you must have astounding discipline. Personally, I'd rather sleep than exercise. That is only one of the countless reasons why I will never be head of the IMF. Maybe if I got out of bed and ran around the block before dawn and learned how to tie a scarf, I would improve my chances of success. On the other hand, it's incredibly relaxing to say the hell with it.
There's no doubt that society discriminates in favour of good looks and charm, and punishes the ugly and charmless. Yet even as Ms. Hakim argues that more women should exploit this prejudice, others argue that we should work harder to fight against it. Economics professor Daniel Hamermesh, author of the new book Beauty Pays, suggests that we could offer legal protections to the ugly, as we do with racial, ethnic and religious minorities. We could even have affirmative-action programs for ugly people (although how many of us would want to declare ourselves members of this disadvantaged group is another matter).
Personally, I think that argument is as silly as Ms. Hakim's. Life is inherently unfair, and some unfairnesses cannot be redressed. As for the vast majority of us who fall between the two extremes of attractiveness – neither extraordinarily beautiful nor painfully plain – I have pleasant news. Looks may count for something. But brains count for more. You can tell your daughters that.