Our starting place for this paper was a concept coined by Catherine Hakim - 'erotic capital'. We've heard of social capital and cultural capital, and Hakim suggests that erotic capital is similar, representing the advantages that can come with being attractive. She defines 'attractive' broadly, covering nice clothes, a good hair-do, posture, poise and charm as well as pure physical beauty.
Hakim is a sociologist and has written extensively on feminist issues in the past. She proposes the notion of erotic capital as a feminist one, but I'm not so sure about its long term contribution to equality. She acknowledges that women face considerable barriers in the work place, and suggests that women therefore should take full advantage of whatever assets they have. She says that research suggests that men rarely get enough sex, and therefore are often susceptible to the charms of a pretty lady.
Her point makes some sense in the short term. Women do indeed face unfair discrimination in the work place. They need to be better than their male counterparts to get the same rewards, and face prejudice in all industry areas at all levels. We've been trying for some time to get equality and haven't managed it - maybe it is time for a new approach? But I think we need to feel sure that a new approach doesn't do any damage.
One particular barrier which I think is pertinent to this debate is that women are assumed to be not as good as men in the work place. There is evidence from Neilsen and Huse (2010) that in the board room, people assume that women aren't going to make valuable contributions, and so are less likely to pay attention or rate their opinions. Schein's (1993) replication of her earlier Think Manager Think Male study (really interesting stuff - do google it if you haven't come across it before) showed that men still think that women in general don't have the skills you need to be a good manager.
So, my concern is this. If women go along with Hakim's suggestions, and make sure that they dress elegantly, spend money on expensive haircuts, and flatter and charm male colleagues, it may indeed lead to higher salaries and promotions. And who wouldn't want that? But what happens to all the stereotypes and prejudice in ten years time when the board rooms are full of attractive women who have got there by flashing their eyelashes and showing a well turned ankle, working side by side with men who have got their by merit? Are we not fueling the existing prejudice that women have less to contribute in the work place than men?
I'm not sure what the answer is, but I am concerned that this approach may compound existing prejudices in the long term.
Nelisen, S. and Huse, M. (2010) Women directors’ contribution to board decision-making and strategic involvement: The role of equality perception European Management Review 7 16 – 29
Schein, V. E., & Davidson, M. J. ( 1993). Think manager–think male: Managerial sex typing among U.K. business students. Management Development Review, 6( 3), 24– 28
* with Tristram Hooley from iCeGs
Yes, I would agree and also think that we are going down the dangerous road to fuelling the current stereotypes/prejudic if we go with Hakim's suggestions. We need to fight against this fate and create more discussion and awareness about the current state of affairs as they are today, how they could get worse and how they are affecting society.
ReplyDelete