Women who use their looks to get ahead

Today I stumbled across a pretty interesting video with a female drummer. She was good. She was also wearing extremely provocative clothing. In fact, I wondered how she made it past YouTube censorship. As I watched her tits wiggle while she eagerly worked her drum set, I thought of something else. Yeah, that too. But I was also reminded of female behavior I have encountered quite a few times over the years, namely that women attempt to use their looks to get ahead. If we are not talking about prostitution, or trying to get a guy to commit, I don’t think this is a particularly smart decision. In fact, a plausible argument can be made that women who draw too much attention to their looks, no matter whether they are good-looking or not, may not be the ideal choice for a relationship. Interestingly enough, it may not even be a good strategy in prostitution. As I recently learnt from a reader, the “girl next door” tends to be in high demand, often much more than the whorish look.

Women in sexually provocative clothing first and foremost distract from their abilities. If she is really good at what she is doing, it won’t take long until other women, or her “friends”, start spreading rumors that she got a job, promotion, or gig because she blew some executive. Instead of letting her work speak for itself, she distracts from it and is reduced to being perceived as a bimbo. I think to some extent this also applies to showbiz. In that regard, the problem is that a successful entertainer is likely to have a career that outlasts their youth. Yet, if you build an image based largely on your sex appeal, you’ll run into a problem sooner or later.

Madonna’s early career was largely built on her breaking taboos, wearing lingerie on stage, and obscene lyrics, like her singing about wanting to blow Jesus in “Like a Prayer” (♫ When you call my name it’s like a little prayer / I’m down on my knees, I wanna take you there ♫). Yet, for how long could she keep up this image? Well, she tried it for much longer than she should have. On the other hand, her talent as a singer was quite apparent, so one could probably argue that she would have done very well even if she hadn’t exposed herself the way she did. The way it turned out, she has been an embarrassment on stage for much longer than she hasn’t.

In the end, I think it boils down the problem that no woman can live off her looks for too long. I know, I know, these days we have affirmative action for womyn, so it doesn’t matter. Yet, this has the very same effect as some HR ditz letting her tits hang out in an interview. Even if they are really competent, you wouldn’t take them seriously. In that regard, affirmative action for womyn is even worse because even women who realize its ramifications can’t opt out of it, while a competent woman can certainly chose to not dress like a whore.

I can easily imagine White Knights reading this and concluding, “Yes, yes, womyn have all the power and we wimpy men have none!” But not so fast, guys: in the very best case a woman can use her looks to her personal advantage. However, this affects only a very small percentage of women, and only for a rather limited number of years. On the other hand, there are plenty women who are at best clumsy in her flirtations and provocations, either because they are not attractive at all, regardless of age, or because her best years have long passed. In the end, it’s a losing strategy. This applies to the professional world the same way it applies to dating. Most guys would much rather have a woman who does not dress like a harlot, and not just those who only fuck prostitutes with the girl-next-door look.

What do you think? Let me know in the comments below, but keep the comment policy in mind.
Please support my work with a donation; your contribution is greatly appreciated! If you need further advice, then get my books or arrange a Skype or email consultation.

12 thoughts on “Women who use their looks to get ahead

  1. I find the women who are able to leverage their looks the best, are actually those who have reasonable abilities as well, but if they are able to use their looks well, it just amplifies whatever success they might otherwise have as well.

    The Madonna example is an obvious one, and I doubt if she would have done as well as she did if she wasn’t so provocative. I highly doubt “Like a Prayer” would have become as popular as it did if it wasn’t so provocative. I am sure she would done well otherwise also, but SO well.

    In more regular life, I feel being able to leverage looks well translates to little advantages that add up incrementally. It’s simple things like, getting a position in the student university body which you wouldn’t get on ability alone. Or a part in a major university play which in turn leads to a senior position in the student theater body. Combination of such positions combined with looks in turn manages to land you an interview with BCG or Mckinsey. Combined with above average ability, you get through one of these interviews, which might in turn lead to an admission acceptance at a Harvard.

    Of course, when you become the head of a student body or work with Mckinsey, you do learn useful things which wouldn’t otherwise, but you wouldn’t get a chance to get these additional experiences on ability alone.

    I think that’s how this looks thing works.

    I b

    1. From what I have gathered, ambitious and successful people in technical fields are rarely good-looking. An additional problem is that good-looking women easily get used to coasting, and thus rarely put in an effort. For them this makes perfect sense, because a career path from high school cheerleader to Communications major to marrying some STEM major and leaving the workforce is more attractive than busting your ass for decades. In comparison, women who are not particularly good-looking but have an aptitude for STEM don’t have much of a choice because Chad and Brad aren’t going to chase after them. The most competent women I met were all more masculine looking; at the very least they had a large chin, indicating higher than average testosterone levels.

      The problem I see with references to consulting, and even technology, is that there is a huge push to get more women into the field. Sometimes this is a necessity due to regulations regarding government contracts (no “diversity” = no money from the government). When given the choice, you probably rather take on a good-looking woman who isn’t at the same level as her male peers than an unattractive one. Some time ago I heard an anecdote from a guy working in a software company. HR was being a pain in the ass because his team didn’t have a woman on the team, and therefore the next hire had to be female. None of the candidates really impressed him, so he picked the one he considered most attractive. Eventually, that woman was moved into some “Scrum Master” role, simply because she wasn’t productive. On the other hand, she couldn’t be fired either, due to political reasons.

    2. The most competent women I met were all more masculine looking; at the very least they had a large chin, indicating higher than average testosterone levels.

      This is also confirmed by scientific research. There are many studies that look into the representation of differing 2d:4d individuals. The “2d:4d ratio” is a rather simplistic but very effective way to determine the masculinity/femininity level of an individual.

      As it turns out, highly masculine females are over-represented in certain positions (ceos, etc), as well as certain industries. Highly feminized males are over-represented in certain spheres.

      A paper called “the feminist paradox” demonstrated that women who identified as feminists were far more masculine than the average female in the population.

  2. What is your problem with communication majors Aaron?

    I have a master in communication and no, this was certainly no walk in the park to obtain it.

    But keep spreading this BS. Many people who took this major thought it would be so easy.

    Yet, out of 600 people who were there in first year, 50 only managed to finish the cursus (5 years here in Europe).

    They call it the garbage major here, people are so sure it’s such a piece of cake… until they try it and fail miserably.

    You must realize something: not everyone is smart enough to make it in computer science or engineering. I have an IQ of 115 for example, which is barely enough to even attempt university.

    Yes, I struggled a bit even with my communication major, but in the end, I made it, with a minor in Germanic langauages which allowed me to find a job quite easily.

    I know many engineers who have been struggling for years to find a job, mostly because they can’t spell properly and they cannot speak multiple languages.

    So please ease off on the “haha, communication major, losers!” Everyone’s situation is different. We’re not all math geniuses, I’d probably have ended up wanting to kill myself if I had gone for a STEM degree.

    Those comments are typical of the manosphere: “get a STEM degree, lift weights, start your own business, etc.”

    1. You make some interesting claims.

      1) If you aren’t smart enough, you won’t be able to finish a STEM degree. Furthermore, anyone smart enough to finish a STEM degree is certainly smart enough to master a skill like spelling. (By the way, you wouldn’t believe how many engineers I have met who are able to converse in three languages.) In fact, it is precisely people who study “soft” majors who are deficient in basic skills. Here is a link to an article on that problem. It is in German, so that you can give your coveted “Germanic skills” a proper workout:

      2) What precisely made you “struggle” in Communications? As I see it, the only problem is that you need to be willing to regurgitate inordinate amounts of bullshit in term papers. In a way, this teaches people persistence, but sadly in a rather misguided way. People who don’t manage to finish such a degree are simply stupid. I would say that a large number of those who quit simply realized that they are wasting their time.

      3) I bet most of your classmates live off the government in one way or another (unemployed, underemployed, working for a non-profit, working for the government). If you don’t see what the problem with that is, teach yourself some economics.

      4) The difference between people with a STEM degree and those without is that the former are much more likely to genuinely produce value for society, while others lead parasitic lives, even though this often happens in disguise.

      5) Did you take a proper IQ test? I would assume that an IQ of 115 with a reasonable variance between sub-scores would cause people to fall asleep in lectures because the material isn’t engaging enough. I took a few humanities classes at university. Frankly, I thought that most professors were fucking stupid. They didn’t realize that they were living in a bubble of mediocrity, and were unable to reason properly. For instance, I once “triggered” a (female) professor in linguistics by trying to explain to her that the work she is presenting is methodologically flawed, which means that the conclusions are likely to be wrong, or at the very least not supported by the evidence. (You see this a lot: you can’t just select a bunch of people, make some observations, and then generalize over the entire population.)

    2. I agree with everything you said, but then what? What would you suggest to all those people (and they’re the vast majority) who just don’t have what it takes to make a ‘real’ contribution to society?

      I’m making a living, I earn good money while the people who failed communication at university are struggling. So you’d better have a master’s degree in communication than no degree at all.

      That’s why picked those studies, and yes, there’s definitely a market for people like me. People who have a master’s degree, speak several languages and are reasonably skilled in IT (I developed several websites on my own time).

      You seem to think that only people with a STEM degree are valuable, and all the rest are parasites. I’ve heard that kind of talk before, especially when I was at university. All those nerds who mocked me for studying communication now not only wasted 5 years of their lives working insanely hard, while I was mostly OK, and they’re now working 72 hours a week for almost the same amount of money that I’m earning (I’m living in a country where the population is heavily taxed: the more you make, the more they take from you).

      Of course, they get pissed off if you point it out to them. If that’s not jealousy, that certainly looks like it.

      You call it being a parasite, I call it being smart, just like these hot girls making money off their looks are being smart. There’s no nobility in working hard just for the sake of it. I laugh at people who work hard. In the end, life’s a zero-sum game anyway.

      I see as a way to draw attention: “God I’m exhausted, I worked so hard this week.” No one gives a fuck, bust your ass off if you want but no need to shout about your oh so hard life on every roof.

      I’m currently trying trying to get a government job, since the salary is much higher and you have to work even less. Yeah I saw you mocking those too. I know many people who think like you and I can understand their point of view. “Working in the public sector, you mean getting more money for less work? Never, I would be ashamed!” Well good, leave those jobs to me and keep making your life harder for the sake of it.

      If it’s not jealousy, it certainly looks like it. That’s the main impression I get from reading your articles lately.

    3. Your argument is flawed. Compare 100 STEM majors with 100 Communications majors. Who do you think makes more on average and has an easier time finding work? By the way, there are vastly more people with bullshit degrees than STEM degree holders. If I were to bet money on the future success of a student, I would wager a lot more on a guy with an applied maths degree.

      By the way, do you notice that your argument is based on a false dichotomy. It’s not about going to university and studying STEM or non-STEM. You can make a very good living learning a trade. I know, I know, if everyone did that yada, yada. The point, though, is that in this day and age people who would have made decent laborers rather go to university, studying an essentially worthless degree. By the way, I met a few highly intelligent people working with their hands, so don’t even try arguing with your alleged IQ of 115. You would have encountered plenty of people smarter than you in carpentry.

      The problem with government is that it is simply a redistribution of other people’s money, and eventually there will be none of it left. Besides, Big Government has jumped the shark a long time ago. Personally, I hope (and fully expect) to see the demise of the European Union within my lifetime. To add a German perspective: Germany has a rather bloated public administration, offering cushy jobs and high salaries. Sadly, to get one of those, you should be female or at least have a migrant background, preferably 2nd or 3rd generation. Meanwhile, the private sector gets taxed into oblivion. Do you want to know what the consequence of that kind of politics is? It’s a brain drain of an enormous extent. Every year, Germany loses around 100,000 mostly highly skilled people — this is a net loss —, as they rather move to places like Switzerland, the UK or the US, or even Scandinavia. The ruling left wing coalition doesn’t see any problem with it as they believe that there are no differences between people, and they welcome millions of illiterates from the Middle East and North Africa. I wonder how that will turn out.

  3. the 2d to 4d alek was talking about,
    my both fingers are nearly identical in length, and i am extremely stress fearing.
    the fuck, why do i get fucked being a feminine male?
    maybe some bad genes.
    yes i dont add value to the discussion.

  4. I have to agree with Greg on some of his points. There are peoples who, doesn’t matter how much pressure you put on them, cannot study successfully Natural Sciences. It’s true that the degree of rigor in these majors is astounding compared to Humanities, say History. But to call these later degrees worthless is a little bit too much and overgeneralized.

    I can also attest to Greg’s statement: “I know many engineers who have been struggling for years to find a job, mostly because they can’t spell properly and they cannot speak multiple languages.” This is mostly true as I have known a couple of people who falls into this category.

    As I said in the STEM vs non-STEM degree topic, it’s a simple fact of life that STEM degrees will usually lead you to a well-paid jobs, and the path is rather clear cut. For students who major in Humanities, they usually have to struggle a bit until they can find a job that they like (or not hate) and build up from there. The number of positions available that directly relates to Humanities degrees are simply much smaller than in STEM. Consequentially, graduates from Humanities would have to seek out jobs outside of their field of study. Those who are bright would certainly sooner or later find a possible career.

    “As I see it, the only problem is that you need to be willing to regurgitate inordinate amounts of bullshit in term papers. In a way, this teaches people persistence, but sadly in a rather misguided way. People who don’t manage to finish such a degree are simply stupid. I would say that a large number of those who quit simply realized that they are wasting their time.”

    I know you are speaking of Communications, but let me ask you where do you get your impression from? The faculty of History in my university and those history classes that I attend is far from what you describe, despite the fact that I used to study in an environment where historians are supposed and forced to do just what you describe. In China, the field of History usually trains students to be mindless and just regurgitate works of senior historians who are held in high regard. But in the US, I find the environment to be much more vibrant. New historians constantly challenge older works, older presumptions in light of new evidence (newly found primary documents or archives, or archaelogical evidences).

    Those who do well in History tend to have an innate ability to learn fast foreign languages (and not just current languages, but dead ones). The ones who are truly bright can contribute to projects aiming at reconstructing an old dead language (like Jurchen language). So just like in many fields, you have to bright to succeed. These skills will be very needed in some fields, albeit requires a long time to find out.

    Take Igor de Rachewiltz for example, his translation of the Secret History of the Mongols is equal to none in its faithfulness to the original Old Mongolian version, and this is the work done by someone who study medieval Mongolian on his own before receiving helps.

    There are lots of historians whose works are quietly quoted in published materials, but whose own works do not get published due to the lack of funding. And most historians do have to face with financial strains, especially those who venture into not so popular subfields. I think they deserve better respect than just being called a “parasite”.

    Without monetary supported provided by public and private fundings, these scholars simply cannot work and their fields would disappear entirely.

    Of course, if you wish to say all fields that are not classified as STEM degrees (all Humanities degrees) are worthless then we have nothing to say.

    1. The problem is that too many students study the humanities. They are also used to keep people off the unemployment register. If fields like history, classics, or even literature were highly selective, let’s say with class sizes of at most half or, better, only a quarter of a typical STEM degree, we could get somewhere.

  5. Is that how it is now in Europe? I haven’t been in the US long enough to know that. Because in my home country the complete is opposite. The number of students who enroll in STEM or financial and accounting degrees is overwhelming to Humanities degrees. Fields such as Archaelogy and History is just severely depleted. This leads to the tragedy that most historical projects right now are undertaken by foreign associations, mostly by Japanese teams. Recently, the Education Department of my country even thought of getting rid of History as a subject in high school as they thought students don’t want to study it at all. Luckily, opposition is strong from parents and critics, they point out that no countries in the world have done such a thing, so such a proposition is drop.

    “If fields like history, classics, or even literature were highly selective, let’s say with class sizes of at most half or, better, only a quarter of a typical STEM degree, we could get somewhere.”

    Yeah, but when you think about it, if classes are that restrictive than there might be only one professor and 0-2 students in the whole lecture class discussing matters. After all, these fields are already much less appealing than STEM fields, and if universities don’t play that deceptive marketing strategy then their revenues would be depleted. That’s just my thought.

    STEM fields can be afforded to be selective because they are highly needed and desired, Humanity fields are mostly considered preposterous in some’s eyes, thus selectiveness seem like a far-fetched strategy to choose students.

    And unemployment is quite a haunting ghosts for all governments anyway.

    1. To give you a particularly striking example: the city I live in sees more students graduate with a degree in Ethnic Studies than Computer Science. It’s bonkers. Of course, graduates of the former, particularly females, have a big employment sector accessible to them that is hostile to men: government and NGOs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *