|
|
|
|
|
|
by ctbeiser
4896 days ago
|
|
|
I'm no expert, but this hasn't convinced me yet: 1. The author shows one anecdotal example of the effect being claimed, and then claims that it's a large factor based again, on wholly anecdotal factors.
2. The author uses as evidence that two CEOs that they can think of are attractive. I don't need to go into the statistics to point out how ridiculous this is.
3. Of CEOs who are women, there aren't any exceptional levels of beauty present, v everywhere else in the world.
4. There are several more likely explanations for this effect than this one.
5. That attractiveness is correlated with pay doesn't mean that attractiveness is being selected for. It can also imply that self-confident people are more likely to be successful, which I believe studies have shown in the past.
6. While claiming not to, this article feeds into the narrative of 'attractive women must be stupid,' by implying that attractive women, having clearly been selected for their attractiveness, will tend to be less intelligent. I'm not saying this isn't something that happens. I'm stating that I'm not convinced attractive women getting hired is a primary problem, rather than, perhaps, sexism in hiring and promoting practices, which has been demonstrated at just about every level of employment. |
|
|
This is not the right way to read it. The article is saying that if your promotion process selects the men with the most merit, but where the appearance of women takes precedence over their merits, the women who make it to higher levels will be less likely to have strong merits than the men (due to different selection criteria). It is not saying that attractive women are less likely to be intelligent, it is saying that they will be competing against men who were selected for their talents (including intelligence).