Posted on 12/27/2011 11:40:08 AM PST by Academiadotorg
With unemployment at record levels, guess what academic economists from coast to coast are devoting their energies to studying?
In The Chronicle Review on December 11, 2011, Rachel Shteir, an associate professor at the Theatre School at DePaul University, helpfully separates the scholars from the crackpots in the burgeoning field of sexonomics. “In the law corner is Daniel S. Hamermesh’s Beauty Pays: Why Attractive People Are More Successful, which calls people who aren’t beautiful ‘The Ugly’ or ‘Looks-Challenged’ and argues that they merit affirmative action,” Shteir wrote. “In the exploit-the-marketplace corner is Catherine Hakim’s Erotic Capital: The Power of Attraction in the Boardroom and the Bedroom, which defines ‘erotic capital’ as a mysterious force that women possess and men want and contends that women should manipulate it to compensate for being less well compensated than men are for their looks.”
“To advance their arguments and challenge common wisdom, the books’ main weapon is number-crunching. Hamermesh, a professor of economics at the University of Texas at Austin, calls his field ‘pulchronomics.’” Shteir herself is the author of The Steal: A Cultural History of Shoplifting (Penguin Press).
(Excerpt) Read more at academia.org ...
*cracking open a can of Coors* This is going to be interesting....
Ms. Schteer, Associate Professor of the Theater Department, would know all about facepaint and pretending, or so it would seem, and so she’s a natural expert on how to bamboozle one’s way to the top, or maybe it’s the cruder version of that, that she advocates.
What’s misterious, Ms. Schteer, is that you believe this to somehow be a new phenomenon.
Mr. Daniels seems a little more grounded in fact, though. So, better looking people do better in life. Who’da thunk?
It is not that women ‘use’ their beauty, it is that men ‘allow’ themselves to be manipulated by it.
And vice versa.
Besides, where would we be as a species, without the ‘attraction’ that beauty provides?
I am reminded, by this article, of the TWILIGHT ZONE episode where the guy thought the world would be better, if everyone looked (and acted) just like him. And he got his wish.
I am in the banking business and I know quite a few people who are butt ugly and nasty and could buy us all out. This is just more “equal outcomes” BS from the commies.
Yep. At some point talent just can’t be contained.
Lets see, we’ve had a sexual revolution, a cultural revolution, a war on poverty, a war on drugs, a war on capitalism and now a war on beauty.
New excuse, “It’s because I’m ugly, right?”.
Women can charge good money for sex, but almost no heterosexual men can.
STOP THE PRESSES! STOP THE PRESSES! News flash: Life is Unfair, Experts Say.
I’d agree. It could be a looks version of the Napoleon complex: ugly men know they have to work harder for the same rewards—and so they do.
Ugly men don’t typically marry gorgeous, self-absorbed, spoiled rotten women who arrogantly feel entitled to spend money with impunity.
Being financially sound is not only about how much you make. It is about how much you spend and consume in relation to how much you make, and how much you save and invest safely and wisely.
But you can’t blame the lefties. They don’t know nuttin about no stinkin wealth and makin money. Alls they know about is takin it from somebody else. . . .
Actually, ugly rich men often do. Again, compensating.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.