Erotic Capital: The Power of Attraction in the Boardroom and the Bedroom [Hardcover]

I agree with other reviewers that the author makes some wild/unfounded claims, doesn't seem to back up enough of her assertions, has an unfortunate tendency to offer only a few extreme examples of whatever she is trying to prove and she can be repetitive. Furthermore, she doesn't seem to realise her own comments about the patriarchy (which I happen to agree with) are feminist while taking frequent potshots at the disapproval of the use of sexual capital by some feminists, a disapproval she doesn't happen to agree with and which she treats as being the view of all feminists.

Hakim repeatedly argues that women are socialised to believe it's wrong to take advantage of the male "sexual deficit" (generally speaking, at every life-stage men want more sex than women: although she doesn't specify, she presumably means no-frills-sex rather than the more time-consuming sensually-drawn-out sexual experience women tend to prefer) weakening her argument however by ignoring what must surely be plenty of exceptions. She points out research showing that women tend not to ask for promotion and payrises at work and asserts (probably rightly) a likelihood that women (as a group) similarly don't adequately negotiate this male sexual deficit to their benefit; she is probably correct to repeatedly allege that this inadequacy is due to the "moral" disapproval of the patriarchy, which does not tolerate women's exploitation of any male weakness while exploiting every possible weakness of women.

It is true that a fairer deal for women, both in public and private life, is desirable but Hakim thinks it is solely up to women to negotiate this! She needs to read some of the feminist literature more seriously perhaps, and here are some highly relevant starting points: "The Shadow King" by Stone, "Gyn/Ecology" by Daly, and "The Great Cosmic Mother" by Sjoo.

In my view the author deserves more praise than she has received (overall) from reviewers here, for:

* combining a great deal of ad hoc attraction research into a good overview
* bravely fingering academic reluctance to address non-PC issues for the overall scarceness of studies on attractiveness
* identifying four types of assets: (a) economic capital (money talks) (b) human capital (what you know) (c) social capital (who you know) and (d) erotic capital
* defining erotic capital: she says it includes beauty, fitness and care in one's appearance as well as liveliness, charm and social skill plus sex appeal and sexual competence - in both genders - and also that women (and gays) work harder at physical appearance because it is more highly valued by men
* pointing out that (however unfair it may seem) studies show beautiful children are often also highly intelligent and that (because they are treated differently from birth) they also enjoy more developed social skills: better, earlier and faster (and this even benefits them over the phone!)
* confirming that beautiful people tend to earn more throughout their working lives - except in management roles, where beautiful women are discriminated against - and that there is nevertheless an element of sexual discrimination against beautiful women who earn about 12 per cent more than ordinary women (and ordinary women earn proportionately more than plain women) whereas beautiful men earn about 20 per cent more than ordinary men.

Note: This looks like the same book as the author's "Honey Money". Why do publishers change the name of a book without explanation or notification?!

Catherine Hakim's theory of "erotic capital" is controversial, not least because women tend to believe that relying on looks and charm to catch a man or get a promotion are subterfuges best left behind in the 1950s. Hakim, a social scientist, proposes that all women should become as attractive as possible and then exploit their sexual power. She explains that the "male sex deficit," the idea that men always want more sex than they get, raises the value of women's erotic capital. Hakim claims that radical feminists, religion and patriarchal society currently foil this feminine advantage. Although the beauty bias is not a new concept, Hakim's reinterpretation raises the stakes. Alas, though she supports women in general, Hakim proves consistently unkind to males, Americans, lesbians, feminists, the overweight and the religious. Nonetheless, for a new perspective on the advantages of attractiveness and on the gender conversation, getAbstract suggests Hakim's thought-provoking thesis.