Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
And now for some light comic relief, an interview with the author of Honey Money
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/aug/19/catherine-hakim-interview?mobile-redirect=false
Catherine Hakim: charm school marm – interview
Want to be popular and successful? Learn to exploit your 'erotic capital', says social scientist Catherine Hakim. But over a tense lunch, Zoe Williams fails to be seduced
Catherine Hakim is a sociologist at the London School of Economics, who has written a book called Honey Money. "The world smiles at good-looking people, and they smile back", is its subtitle, and it goes on to posit this theory: that we have erotic capital, and this divides into six categories: beauty; sexual attractiveness; social skills like grace, charm and discreet flirtation; liveliness, which is a mixture of physical fitness, social energy and good humour; social presentation, including dress, jewellery and other adornments; and finally, sexuality itself, competence, energy, imagination.
We meet in Covent Garden, over fancy tapas. She arrives and says, "I must go and brush my hair," which she really needn't have done, because I don't buy her theory. I don't care what someone's hair looks like, I find hair neither impedes nor accelerates a discussion about ideas. I did not say so, thank God, even in jest, otherwise our encounter could have been even worse than it was.
Erotic capital, according to the book, can be used by women and men, but as a result of the "male sex deficit" –men want sex much more than women, a "new social fact that social scientists have mostly sidestepped" – women have more scope to exploit it. "In sexualised, individualised modern societies," she writes, "erotic capital is becoming more important and more valorised, for men and women. However, women have a longer tradition of developing and exploiting it." And yet, for all our noble history of accessorising and being lively, we have never as a sex been encouraged to exploit it, because of the "patriarchy". "Patriarchal ideologies have systematically trivialised women's erotic capital to discourage women from capitalising on it – at men's expense." Furthermore, "unfortunately, radical feminists today reinforce patriarchal 'moral' objections to the deployment of erotic capital." And "one reason why erotic capital has been overlooked is that the elite cannot monopolise it, so it is in their interest to belittle it and sideline it." Hakim is keen to stress that her thesis is "evidence based" and nothing to do with prejudice or ideology, and finishes her introduction with this rallying cry: "why not champion femininity rather than abolish it? Why does no one encourage women to exploit men whenever they can?"
...
Catherine Hakim: charm school marm – interview
Want to be popular and successful? Learn to exploit your 'erotic capital', says social scientist Catherine Hakim. But over a tense lunch, Zoe Williams fails to be seduced
Catherine Hakim is a sociologist at the London School of Economics, who has written a book called Honey Money. "The world smiles at good-looking people, and they smile back", is its subtitle, and it goes on to posit this theory: that we have erotic capital, and this divides into six categories: beauty; sexual attractiveness; social skills like grace, charm and discreet flirtation; liveliness, which is a mixture of physical fitness, social energy and good humour; social presentation, including dress, jewellery and other adornments; and finally, sexuality itself, competence, energy, imagination.
We meet in Covent Garden, over fancy tapas. She arrives and says, "I must go and brush my hair," which she really needn't have done, because I don't buy her theory. I don't care what someone's hair looks like, I find hair neither impedes nor accelerates a discussion about ideas. I did not say so, thank God, even in jest, otherwise our encounter could have been even worse than it was.
Erotic capital, according to the book, can be used by women and men, but as a result of the "male sex deficit" –men want sex much more than women, a "new social fact that social scientists have mostly sidestepped" – women have more scope to exploit it. "In sexualised, individualised modern societies," she writes, "erotic capital is becoming more important and more valorised, for men and women. However, women have a longer tradition of developing and exploiting it." And yet, for all our noble history of accessorising and being lively, we have never as a sex been encouraged to exploit it, because of the "patriarchy". "Patriarchal ideologies have systematically trivialised women's erotic capital to discourage women from capitalising on it – at men's expense." Furthermore, "unfortunately, radical feminists today reinforce patriarchal 'moral' objections to the deployment of erotic capital." And "one reason why erotic capital has been overlooked is that the elite cannot monopolise it, so it is in their interest to belittle it and sideline it." Hakim is keen to stress that her thesis is "evidence based" and nothing to do with prejudice or ideology, and finishes her introduction with this rallying cry: "why not champion femininity rather than abolish it? Why does no one encourage women to exploit men whenever they can?"
...
Fun read. Enjoy.
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
What better way than to slut-shame and limit to control men's access to the priceless and highly desired commodity of female sexuality? What better way to neutralize our competition?
Puritanism is as good as anything else, dontchaknow.
for the humor impaired
