Erotic Capital

Erotic Capital[BOOKS] ✪ Erotic Capital By Catherine Hakim – In 2010 pioneering sociologist Catherine Hakim shocked the world with a provocative new theory In addition to the three recognized personal assets economic cultural and social capital each individual In pioneering sociologist Catherine Hakim shocked the world with a provocative new theory In addition to the three recognized personal assets economic cultural and social capital each individual has a fourth asset Erotic Capital that he or she can and should use to advance within society In this bold and controversial book Hakim explores the applications and significance of Erotic Capital challenging the disapproval meted out to women and men who use sex appeal to get ahead in life Social scientists have paid little serious attention to these modes of personal empowerment despite overwhelming evidence of their importance In Erotic Capital Hakim marshals a trove of research to show that rather than degrading those who employ it Erotic Capital represents a powerful and potentially eualizing tool one that we scorn only to our own detriment. Ah the joys of women pandering to men's needs as a way of communicating in the workplace What woman could say no?Well I hope every one of you who is a female and reading this will always say no However there seems to be an increasingly vocal minority of highly successful women who bizarrely believe that sex discrimination no longer occurs in the workplace or elsewhere who are now advocating that you as a woman should go ahead and exploit your femininity and behave in a manner in the workplace or wherever and however else you encounter men that is essentially about pandering to their needs by you flirting and using “erotic capitalCatherine Hakim academic sociologist at the prestigious world renowned London School of Economics is not only author of this uestionable book but also it seems proud of her work in “criticising feminist assumptions about employment the uote is from her Wikipedia profileIn Honey Money Hakim is effectively saying just use your erotic capital’ and voilà you may find a rich man but certainly life will become easier because men will treat you better So THAT's how women can be successful in today's society? Wow Who thought it could be so utterly straightforward as that All you need to do is “smile flutter your eyelids maybe wear high heels dress in body shape enhancing clothes use a certain appealing tone of voice and oh please don't worry if you or others think you're not pretty; no says Hakim erotic capital is really all about your attitude In other words flirt away to any guy that has any power over you or if you think you want to influence himIs this representative of new thinking about women in society and their peer relationships with men and in the workplace? Does this sort of tripe even merit publication and by respectable publishers no less No and instead of radical new thinking this book represents a pre 80s typically 1950s60s70s and earlier attitude towards and about women all over again By the way Hakim's advocacy of legalisation of prostitution and surrogacy have little credence given that they are contained within this book on erotic capital that makes a mockery of women and tells her that exploiting her 'femininity' is the path to success Frankly her thesis perfectly echoes Ira Levin's 1972 bestselling satirical novel The Stepford Wives and at least the first 1975 film it inspired In Levin's novel the men's sexist attitudes have led to their desire for and then creation of the perfect woman’ in an eually perfect secluded gated community The robotic type women are always smiling the perfect hostess submissive forever wanting to please her man and doing so at his bidding and most of the time before it I think this all sounds remarkably similar to what Hakim is advocating in her book and Odone endorses though both may argue otherwise namely A woman should always please the men in their lives whether co worker boss or husband potential partner or just a guy serving you in a shop or wherever else Give him a smile be demure flutter your eyelids Paint your face Massage his tense shoulders from being stressed at being a man in the modern age Just glow with your erotic capital m'dear then all will be well in your world I mean this sort of nonsense is being spouted by a senior academic at one of the leading British universitiesAs an academic Hakim really has no excuses for publishing this sexist book It seems too as I mentioned earlier that Hakim uestions “feminist assumptions about employment and relating to gender pay disparity Why as a contemporary sociologist who has also specialised in women and employment related issues not know that discrimination against women in the workplace and in pay is rife and continues to be faced by the majority of women in the workplace across the globe despite the backing of their rights in most if not all Western countries through legislation for eual pay such as with the UK's 1970 Eual Pay Act A google search alone on gender pay disparity will bring up a whole load of research websites and reports There's also the World Economic Forum's Global Corporate Gender Gap Report 2010 and as one example into a specific global major industry financial services and produced by the UK's Euality and Human Rights Commission there's a 2009 published Sex Discrimination and Gender Pay Gap Report on their website you can find a press summary of the report the report itself as well as a fascinating 2011 report from the same organisation on women being passed over for top jobsAs anyone who is even half awake about the realities of the world knows sex discrimination is far from over and Hakim's Honey Money and Odone far from celebrating women and helping to challenge sex discrimination objectification of women and trivialisation of them by the appalling notion of “erotic capital reinforce such objectification discrimination etc And you can just see the conseuences of Honey Money thinking in the CityWall Streetthe financial services industry or frankly any other male dominated workplace Such trivialisation will go down a treat with the guys in powercontrol over women who work with or for them as the women will be at the mercy of their being charged with using “erotic capital when in fact the women are being harassed by the menMost people I reckon unfortunately have enough to contend with either being in crap jobs if you're fortunate enough to have a job in the first place and with women they have the double edged sword facing them unlike the majority of men even now in the Noughties given most still do all or most of the shoppingcleaningcooking as well as be a co wage earner Hakim and Odone point to such hardships and argue that was it worth it for feminists to win the fight to the right to work rather than be pigeon holed into stay at home mums only But surely one of the key points of feminism wa and is to make sure eual access to all industries and all jobs available just as it is to make sure such access to education and eual pay based on talent ualifications and experience Whereas Hakim seems to be saying that adopting a Honey Money attitude towards the men in your life will likely give you a far better chance at a better uality of life than the misery of modern work Why golly gee you could probably be lifted off your feet by a rich dashing non gay Rock Hudson and escape from the drudgery of common working life But I think we can count such women on one hand or perhaps one digit unless you watch the rich women in Orange County andor already happen to be richAs for Hakim well she doesn't have to be worry about having to use ‘erotic capital’ to get ahead after all she's an established academic at a top university; yet she seems to sneer at women's real rights in her book while having her own delicious cake to eat “Do as I say not as I do in other wordsUltimately Honey Money's credo its advocacy of erotic capital will be seen for what it is a sexist revisionism of genuine women's rights and self empowerment the Empress's New Clothes to paraphrase the cliché It is intellectually dishonest morally bankrupt thinking that wholeheartedly pejorative towards women; it is therefore explicitly anti feminist anti women's rights in the workplace to be treated as an eual to men not to be slathered over because of flirting with them and echoes back to a denigrating time culture and thinking that is at most pre 1980s and frankly smacks as indicated earlier of the 1950s and before I'm reminded of an age old sexist chant by men typically drunk when they sing it that would agree wholeheartedly with the essence of Hakim's argument but I won't add it here; suffice it to say that Honey Money does harm I think to the real issues and challenges women face in the modern day workplaceHakim not only seem to disapprove of modern feminism but worse think there's no need for feminism or feminists any Well I for one don't approve of their characterisation of women as flirtatious male pandering Stepford Wives of this decade or any other Talk about backwards sexist thinking Even shallow pop culture trivialisations of feminism for young women's consumption by characterising women's rights as “Riot Grrrl and before that “Girl Power are genuinely meaningful in depth and useful to women young and old than the nonsense of this sociologist; I believe she brings shame to the history of women's struggles and to the women who have fought in every sense for their rights There is nothing to celebrate in a supposedly bright woman celebrating as a way to get ahead an encouragement for women to focus on their appeal to men via their own looksconsideration of themflirting with thembody languagetone of voicefemininity Okay short version I had high hopes for this book They were all completely unmetI went into it keen to hear what Hakim had to say I left confused as to how this messy ramble got published What I expected interesting psychological studies insights into the role gender and attractiveness in general has in the workplaceWhat I got Sweeping generalisations that didn't actually cite research Check those footnotes they don't lead to references just rambling Statements out of the blue with no demonstrated supporting evidence I don't understand people who say she's included supporting evidence in the text when literally all her 'references' are just footnotes where she adds additional comments that sometimes even contradict what she'd just said I felt like I was going crazy reading it like surely someone can't get away with saying studies show that X and not cite a single study On the plus side now that I know that one doesn't actually have to apply the scientific method or cite evidence for their opinions in non fiction pieces I'm about to launch my successful new career as a materials engineer publishing works like 'Iron ore is objectively uglier than other kinds of ore1' and 'Physicists prefer to walk while thinking2' References1 I have spent a lot of time looking at iron ore and I just don't like the colour of it 2 I studied physics in highschool and I enjoy a good walk So does my friend Tim who was in my classWhat you just read is basically my experience of the 'citations' in this book If you want some concrete examples of the lack of actual academic research present see what I wrote as my 'currently reading' update after Chapter TwoI'm still reading this but I need to record some of my thoughts now while they are still fresh I've just completed Chapter 2The opening of chapter one and the blurb got my hopes up Then my heart plummeted when I saw my first WTF CITATION NEEDED piece of commentary that basically then repeated itself over and over with no supporting evidence Someone else I see has written that Hakim has her own framework for how the world works and simply looks for ways to present information so that it seems valid Sadly this seems spot onThe scientific method is entirely absent in the way she presents her interpretations of the little data she has Also she herself points out how limited the research was she had to draw on but instead of mentioning this in a take with a grain of salt fashion she frames it as heck yeah I was able to write a supposedly non fiction book with so little informationIt's frustrating because it is not as if I disagree with a large part of what she is saying And I find it interesting But I just keep thinking How DUMB do you think I am? Do you expect me to read all these random theories and nod stupidly going 'Oh gee thanks for explaining all that I am just going to take everything you say at face value surely all those footnotes support your claims' But in reality nearly every footnote points not to an actual reference but to another wild theoryopinion Hakim has and on at least one occasion the footnote completely contradicted the point that uses it as a reference What the? Was an editor involved with this work at all?She also wants to make it clear that just because she is recommending women make use of their erotic power that she is OMG NOT A FEMINIST She makes sweeping statements about what feminists think she just assumes you 'know' this is clearly true in order to prove she is beyond themuote Feminists claim that it is a myth that men have stronger libidos A sweeping generalisation like that with no references would have had me docked 5% of my mark if it appeared in an essay in highschool let alone in a tertiary institution And it certainly doesn't gel with my own experience feminists have a diverse range of opinions based on their own personal experiences with relationships and their knowledge of biology and psychology they are not a homogenous grouping The whole point is to allow women the choice to be what is in their nature whether that is super girly traditional housewife dentist or judge Hakim talks about feminism as if it's a uniform creed with the implication that this creed is anti femininityAnother uote on male versus female desire pg48 Feminists argue that the imbalance in malefemale sexual desire was socially constructed an ideal imposed by men and would vanish once patriarchal restrictions on women's sexual lives and activities were eliminatedAgain I don't disagree with the overall idea that all things being eual men desire sex freuently than women Although I wouldn't support this idea without some actual cited modern research But back to the 'all things being eual' point because it's an important factor Hakim implies repeatedly that all things ARE eual now that the sexual revolution of the 1960s and 70s contraception and looser attitudes have enabled women to embrace sexuality in the same way as menWHAT is she smoking? Yeah being open about sex and being sexually active is easier for women nowadays in most anglo saxon cultures However is she wants to imply that women are now in an identical position to men when it comes to sexual politics censure and risk she needs to re examine her position The idea that women are no longer slut shamed and that the attitudes of previous generations are not still impacting on children born in the 90s is ludicrous Yes we are freer than previously But NO by NO MEANS are women in the same situation as men when it comes to their own sexualityI was raised by pretty open minded parents who always answered my uestions truthfully and certainly wanted to support their daughter pursuing a career that mattered to her They never to my knowledge discussed a difference in the value or activity of male and female sexuality And yet I still grew up with strong notions about my own body's sexuality the value of female virginity versus male virginity and a bunch of other notions that according to Hakim no longer exist in my culture And these social attitudes DO still impact on my own life and choicesFor a far better discussion of male versus female sexual desire read this article Anyway back to the book Hakim also fails to provide sufficient detail on her visual supporting material keeping it vague enough to make it difficult to know if the data truly supports or is non significant when it comes to her framework For example on Page 53 of the paperback she has a Sex differences in auto eroticism chart that ranks auto eroticism from 1 to 5 then shows percentage groups of men and women identifying themselves as being that er auto eroticNowhere is this scale explained IS this 1 5 rating something straightforward like Masturbates 1 5 times a day? Or does the 1 5 mean something totally different like1 I have never masturbated in my life2 I masturbate weekly3 I masturbate daily4 I masturbate 2 12 times a day5 I'm masturbating right nowWhat ages were tested? What sample size?I don't expect Hakim to reproduce the detailed survey in her material but at the very least she should explain the basic nature of the study and explain WTF the scale actually means I kept handing this book to my mathematician partner to make sure I wasn't just being nutty about how useless these graphs and stats appearedCompare this to any of V S Ramachandran's works where he is far clearer about the nature of the studies he references and why they're statistically significantThere's also some subtle points in her arguments referring to homosexual relationships where she implies that all homosexual male relationships are about sex and all homosexual female relationships are about love And that most lesbians do not care about their appearance and most homosexual men spend ages on their looks Good looks matter to some lesbians but not to most no citation of courseWell done; lesbians are a subset of humansMost modern gay men have jobs so that their investment in stylish good looks has to fit in with the demands of regular employmentOh my god Gay dudes are a subset of humans tooTo me the ugly lesbian seems like a cultural construct intended to cause shame and reinforce mainstream sexual behaviours much like the fat ugly or slutty sexism directed towards women in online gaming a few places inc pg 62 Hakim makes the statement that heterosexual men have sex 4 times as much as heterosexual women excluding sex workers I'd like some numbers for this because if heterosexual dudes are only sleeping with ladies then does that mean again not with sex workers apparently does that mean there's one nominated lady in each city who is the outlier that services all these dudes for free? Um maybe but there's no info in Hakim's discussion of the study other than her inference that all these guys are having affairs WITH WHO? Again het guys so they aren't sleeping with each other How can this occur without women being involved therefore upping their sexual activity also?Also Hakim implies that because women self report masturbating less freuently than men that means their sexual desires are lower Again this is assuming women are in the same boat as men when it comes to bodies and attitudes Anecdotal observation it is a lot easier for guys to work out what to do with a dick than it is for girls with no input to work out what to do with a clitoris Male masturbation was brought up in my co ed promary school but never female masturbation It was the same in highschool female masturbation was never brought up in our extensive healthsex ed classes I only learned what it was thanks to spanish SBS films in my mid teens and it took a long time to teach myself how to do itShe even mentions that many women report never masturbating or having an orgasm in their life Maybe if they knew how they might try it? This is not considered at all in her approach to the subject If you struggle with this check out the Sex Nerd Sandra podcast everything you needed to know about sex presented by friendly open minded knowledgeable funny peopleAnyway I'll now read the remainder of the book; apparently it gets better PIt didn't Interesting perspective on using erotic capital as a domination instrument instead of a victim's feature A little bit too pro cold and meaningless sex but you just can't deny she is honest Sad but true Here is a blog post that I wrote while reading this bookLies are not statisticsSeptember 4th 2014I am reading Erotic Capital by Catherine Hakim One of the author's contentions is that despite large amounts of propaganda to the contrary men generally do want sex often than women do To this end she cites some surveys that asked the uestion Do you wish there were sex in your current relationship? The numbers seem pretty clear after age 20 that men often feel there should be sex in their current relationship than there is The only way that I feel the numbers might be misleading assuming no reporting errors is that if women are far likely to draw the distinction between sex and sex in this relationshipSo fine But then the argument jumps the shark when it goes on to talk about the number of sexual partners men have in their lifetimes versus how many women have in their lifetimes I almost crashed my car last night thinking about how wrong this argument was I was trying to find the right analogy and totally believed while doing this that the cross traffic at my intersection had a stop sign I got some angry honks but that's way better than getting hit And it's way better than the math in this bookFrom the context it seems clear that for the purposes of the surveys involved sexual partner means sexual partner of the opposite sex The book says that survey after survey shows that on average men have two to three times the number of sexual partners in their lifetime than women have It cites this as evidence that men want sex often or just than women doLet's do the math How do we calculate the average number of sexual partners men have? We ask every man How many sexual partners of the opposite sex have you had? We sum up all of those and divide by the number of men surveyed How do we calculate the average number of sexual partners women have? We ask every woman How many sexual partners of the opposite sex have you had? We sum up all of those and divide by the number of women surveyedAssume for a minute that we were able to survey a whole closed population For every woman on a given man's list of female sexual partners that man is on her list This is true for every man For every man on a given woman's list of male sexual partners that woman is on his list This is true for every womanSome part of your brain is probably trying to figure out a way where if things were imbalanced enough if there were a few really active women and lots of moderately active men or some such thing it might still work out It doesn't It's like saying that on average Canadians enter two to three times as many buildings as they exit each dayWhere does this leave us? This means that for it to be true that men have two to three times the number of sexual partners in their lifetimes than women have eitherMen live two to three times as long as womenThere are two to three times women than men orSome combination of the twoNone of that is borne out by the demographics Women live longer than men and make up a slightly greater proportion of the populationWhat do the surveys show then?It may be there are a few women with anomolously high numbers of sexual partners who also manage to slip through the cracks of the survey This seems highly unlikely Even if true it doesn't bolster the argument that men want sex than women doIt may be there are a few men with anomolously high numbers of sexual partners who manage to get picked for all of the surveys This seems highly unlikely Even if true it doesn't bolster the argument that men want sex than women doIt may be that men and women differ in how well they remember the number of sexual partners they have and that one group is or both groups are systemically wrong in exactly the right way to make this impossible statistic This seems highly unlikely Even if true it doesn't bolster the argument that men want sex than women doIt may be that women in general have a narrower definition of what constitutes a sexual partner than men do This doesn't seem unlikely but it also doesn't bolster the argument that men want sex than women doIt may be that there are societal pressures for men to inflate their numbers even on anonymous surveys andor for women to deflate their numbers even on anonymous surveys I think it's undeniable that this is the case and could easily account for the whole of the two to three times factor It still doesn't bolster the argument that men want sex than women doIf I were arguing that Canadians prefer being indoors to outdoors and cited a statistic saying Canadians enter two to three times as many buildings on average as they exit each day I should be pilloriedI'm not saying men do or do not want sex than women do or that Canadians prefer being indoors or out I'm saying that citing these surveys as evidence of an argument either way destroys your credibilityI don't know if I can keep reading this book I discovered this book while reading The Economist a few weeks back; they had reviewed it and had given it favorable reviews I found this book to be very informative and incredibly provocative I could not put it down I finished it in less than a day and I was so sad for it to end The arguments that Ms Hakim presents are sometimes upsetting but upon reflection a lot of what she writes is regretfully true and accurate to what I have seen being a female in the work force now for over 6 yearsI consider myself a true feminist in that I don't believe that women need to act like men in order to succeed in our society Women should celebrate being women and all that this entails I also don't think that being a women per se means that you are a floozy It means that you understand that appearances do matter especially when it comes to finding a mate and that women should take pride in the fact that we are the fairer sexThis books basically presents the argument that women are born with a comparative advantage over men and this comparative advantage is what Ms Hakim refers to as Erotic Capital Women have this advantage because the female libido is much lower than our male counterparts studies have proven this time and time again What Ms Hakim argues is that our modern patriarchal society tries to deny women of this advantage and that we are basically brainwashed into thinking that making ourselves attractive is somehow bad or vain or oppressive By women believing these ideas we are unknowingly depriving ourselves of a valuable and tangible asset By striving to be healthy something we should do anyway well groomed and socially aware we will make far money in our lifetimes and also increase the chances of finding a mate These things are very important to me and they are also important to all the women in my life I feel that we should all give ourselves the best chance we can and embrace this power that we were born withI think this is an excellent book and a breath of fresh air; BRAVO I actually DID like this book even though I only rated it a three star This is how it all makes senseCatherine Hakim's extensive and thorough research into erotic capital is impressive She dares to bring up a subject that is extremely important in today's society and she backs it up with numerous studies in both sociology and psychology Hakim asks just the right uestions I don't agree with everything said since I find some of the answers way too easy of an explanation None the less I am intrigued to study the subject even further by myself and through other books by Hakim I particularly liked the comparison between men and women and the discussion on Feminism Feminism has become part of the reason why women fail to ask for what they want and fail to get what they think is fair However I did get a little tired and lost about a third into the book and it took me a while to get through those pages Therefore the three stars since she almost lost my interest completely there for a while I read this becauseeven though I knew I would probably disagree with iti thought it would challenge my perspective on the issues mentioned what with it being written by someone from lse Alas it just felt like I was trolling myself there are so many holes in her argumentalot that is just wrong and massive side helpings of fatphobiahomophobicmisogyny and wilfull misrepresentations of feminism Complete nonsense I found some interesting facts but the overall thesis was poorly justified Basically Hakim has a framework and wants to fit the world into this framework Naturally her framework explains everything while predicting nothing new Gave up early so if the book got good then I apologize for not being patient enough to find the good Her lack of citations was really annoying especially when she was making controversial claims This book is hard going since it's written like an essay with a whole lot of supporting data written in to the book itself The first two chapters are the hardest then after that it's much easier A lot of people disagree with the ideas she's putting forth but I personally think that some of it is valid Things like women who are attractive get paid attention and therefore get luckier breaks and move up faster in the world this is similar to a an attractive tall man who gets a far bigger pay packet than a short unattractive man or even an average looking average looking man Who hasn't ever heard of Short Man Syndrome and laughed about it? Because it's true Heartening to know though that the value of beauty is the same as having a higher educationwhich means it only goes so far

Hardcover  ß Erotic Capital Kindle ¿
  • Hardcover
  • 304 pages
  • Erotic Capital
  • Catherine Hakim
  • English
  • 05 June 2015
  • 9780465027477