If you buy something using links in our stories, we may earn a commission. Learn more.
Oh Samantha, Samantha, Samantha – sit down dear, we need to chat.
Listen you’re cute enough alright, I’m not going to join in with the 5,000+ commenters who bashed your button nose, don’t worry. Because that’s not the point. Calling you out on your article in The Daily Mail by informing you that you’re “not that pretty” or “plain” is really just the other side of the coin that your article represents. I’d hate to put a dink in that impressive armor you’ve clearly labored over so diligently.
I would however, like to defend the other side. See there are women, pretty and plain alike, who have no problem with pretty girls for the sake of their prettiness. If we have a problem with someone, it’s based on the content of their character, and not the package it comes wrapped in.
Your claim that all the vitriol currently being slung your way is only proving your thesis that women don’t like pretty girls is just bad science.
It does not take into account the possibility of other factors that could be influencing the result. People could dislike you for many reasons. For instance, you could have body odor, be an intruder of personal space, have a knack for turning up at the wrong moment, or a speech impediment that you are unaware of. (I only recently found out I have a lisp when I listened to a playback of myself on YouTube. I had no idea I sounded like a stoned Drew Barrymore. You learn something everyday.)
Or maybe, Samantha, you are one of those women who trades on their sex appeal to get ahead. In fact according to an article you wrote, you admit very same. So let’s address this then. First, playing the giggling coquette at the office is not a tactic available only to the pretty. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, after all, and not all men like blondes. As a wise man once said, “Some men are dogs; they’ll go after anything they think is available, especially if they think they can get away with it.” (High five, Dad, thanks for the tip!) You’ll notice he didn’t mention that the object of lust had to be “pretty,” just perceived as available. So, wait, let me think, that kind of plays into your whole “flirting at the office to get ahead,” doesn’t it? Hey, maybe that worked for you less because you are pretty, and more because you projected the idea that you were “up for anything” and thus an object that was attainable.
Gosh, “object.” There’s that word. Ya know, I’ve always had trouble with that word when it’s applied to my worth as a female. As a society we evaluate objects based on their appearance and their usefulness, both perceived and verified. This is a handy evaluation set for actual inanimate objects, but somewhat less useful when applied to an individual. Here’s why: If I need a particular task done, by a skilled person, rarely does their appearance factor into my needs. Unless the job is in the entertainment or fashion industries, the skills I need probably lay on the inside of the package rather then the outside. So evaluation criteria as applied to objects, not helpful when applied to people. A resume is far more handy.
Women have been struggling for decades to implement a better system of evaluation everywhere in society, especially the workplace. I don’t know if you are aware of this, Samantha, but lots of women, for like years, have disliked the appearance-based evaluation system. In fact, lots of pretty girls who got ahead and suspected it was largely based on looks got really angry about it. They started this thing called “feminism” and tried to educate people that women should be evaluated and rewarded based on substantive qualities rather then superficial ones. Seriously, wiki Gloria Steinem — true story.
Anecdotally, I will share that in my life both in and out of an office I’ve been hit on many times. It’s never occurred to me to take it as a commentary on my attractiveness. Outside the workplace I’ve always chalked it up to “some dudes are horn-dog jerks.” Inside the workplace I’ve always seen the situation for what it was, an inappropriate power play. In every case it’s made me sick. As a skilled female I’ve preferred to be assessed and interacted with based on my accomplishments and qualities, not my looks. Unless I want to date them, what someone thinks of how I look is meaningless to me. The idea of capitalizing on someone’s opinions of my looks, not my cup of tea.
I’ve worked with pretty girls, I’ve worked with plain girls. Most have worked hard and their ambitions were fulfilled fairly. A few, pretty and plain alike, tried to trade on their looks. Those that did were always seen for what they were, lazy and manipulative. They cast themselves outside the group dynamic of the office by their behavior. Such actions were always viewed as unfair play, and the people responsible perceived as having no moral compass, and a willingness to do anything. Office mates were distrustful of these individuals; they were not well liked, not because of their looks, but because of their actions and the content of their character those actions revealed. In my experience a woman (or man) willing to trade on their looks at the office to get ahead has a deep addiction to this type of behavior; it invades every aspect of their life and informs every relationship, professional and personal. I’ve always felt sorry for these people. There’s a hole in their soul somewhere.
In my experience, with the women I’ve known in my life, not one has ever had a problem with a pretty girl because she was pretty. We did however have a problem with the deluded, the arrogant, the manipulative, the inappropriate and the women we felt were willing to play a sexist game to get what they wanted, deserved or not.
So maybe, Samantha, that’s another possible explanation for the phenomenon you’ve been experiencing.
