- At lower levels in an organization, it is easy to maintain the appearance that there is no discrimination going on. "Hey look, there are just as many women as there are men". But come time for promotion to senior, and eventually executive, positions, the pool of exceptional females grows thinner and thinner in comparison to the men, whose looks played less of a role in their initial hiring.
[citation needed] This is an article in which one person puts forth an unsourced, unverified bit of slander and then makes an article out of it. Yeah, Marissa Mayer isn't ugly. But without dragging this into territory it really doesn't deserve to go, I seriously doubt Meg Whitman was ever hired by anyone because she's "a great pair of legs."No doubt this explanation carries some weight to it, but there is another contributing factor that many understand but few want to talk about: women are often hired for their looks.
Agreed. I work for a company that, after a scheduled merger this summer, will have around 40,000 employees. Our CEO is an unattractive lesbian, and no one gives a shit, because she is really good at her job. Feminists need to stop living in the 50's, too.
Consider the situation in, say, politics however. Attractiveness is definitely a quality which is driven home for women in politics. It's not to say all women are chosen for their looks exclusively, but let's face it - if a woman in a public position does not look decently attractive, she will get slandered more than a man of similar attractiveness. Women are expected to be held to a different standard, even subconsciously. There were news reports about Obama's inauguration this month which focused on Michelle's choice in dress and giving unbelievable importance to her appearance. It feels like a casual glance at the news will yield an in-depth critique of how she looked, but barely a peep over what she's said. I know, the first lady isn't exactly a political position of great weight but the unbelievable focus on her appearance is emblematic of the zealotry with which people judge women in the public sphere on their appearance. Is attractiveness the sole identifier for "will this woman be hired"? No, obviously not. Does it mean every woman in a high position is also attractive? Certainly not, that's a gross exaggeration. But is there a pattern? You can't deny that you won't see generally unattractive women in the heights of business. Women are judged more harshly on appearance than men, and it requires greater skill and competence to overcome the initial negativity over appearance than it would for a man.
And men. It is widely acknowledged that Nixon lost the 1960 election to Kennedy due to the first televised debates, where Kennedy appeared tan and young while Nixon appeared sweaty and old. I'm not going to face that - you haven't provided any evidence whatsoever. "A man of similar attractiveness" is a null concept - men and women are attractive for different reasons to different genders. This man: ran against this woman: ...without any "slander" other than her sexual orientation. Inaugural balls are - wait for it - balls. That's like saying people talked about clothing at the Oscars. Of course they did. They always do. And, for the record, "it feels like" is not a valid argument. "It can be shown that" is an acceptable substitute. I'll give you this: attractiveness definitely matters in leadership. It is a component of charisma. However, there is plenty of research on this subject and the article cited didn't bother investigating any of it. I'm not a fan of truthiness. Just because you want something to be true does not mean you can assert it as truth. Does attractiveness matter more for women CEOs? I dunno - let's run some numbers and find out. Then we're contributing to the discussion, rather than muddying the waters.Attractiveness is definitely a quality which is driven home for women in politics.
let's face it - if a woman in a public position does not look decently attractive, she will get slandered more than a man of similar attractiveness.
You're right - those are regrettably poor arguments on my part for a thing which I feel but can't substantiate properly. I'll need to look deeper at this one to see if it's worth holding on to this one as much as my gut reaction suggests. I fully intend to do some more thorough research about this, because whether my instinctual reaction is justifiable or not, there has to be a reason for the disparity in numbers between men and women in leadership roles. Actually, scratch that - there is almost certainly a variety of reasons why, and this has made me feel a bit more responsible to understand which ones are valid and which ones are knee-jerk reactions or assumptions. I'll be investigating some of the research out there and some of the actual data, because this is something I'd like to know and not just theorize on. Then perhaps I'll have a more worthwhile response for you.
Right there with you - I'm not a fan of inequality. It has been my experience that data is far better at changing perceptions than feelings are, however, and when we're starting an article talking about "truths" there better be at least a hint of research about the matter. My suspicion is that, like most things, this is a lot more complicated than can be easily digested into bite sized blog chunks, which makes it easier to write about "truth" while using opinion.this is something I'd like to know and not just theorize on. Then perhaps I'll have a more worthwhile response for you.
Perhaps the more attractive a person is the more experience they have in socializing and making a lasting impression compared to a more unattractive rival. Attractive people tend to be more outgoing because of the fact that throughout their lives people have been more prone to seek them out. Also this article fails to recognize that many studies have shown correlation between attractiveness and intelligence. This article is just one of many that points out that being attractive inst just looks
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundament... Also many women are not in senior leadership positions simply because less women have the desire to be in those positions. You can blame it on our culture but many younger women want their husbands to be able to take care of them and feel that they should not have to take up higher positions. The real reason women do not hold as much as a grasp is that many women don't truly want it, similar to the failing of the equal rights amendment.
I think that even though you make a good point about attractiveness being correlated with intelligence, having a bias towards being attractive is equally as bad as a bias towards rich people. Sure, rich people are typically smarter, because they get better education. But ideally we should be choosing employees based on the abilities, rather than things that could be indicative of their abilities. And I don't think employers hire attractive women because they are more intelligent. They hire them because they are attractive, which is the problem the article points out.