The Price of Pretty

PRETTY PRIVILEGE INADVERTENTLY HURTS THE UPWARD MOBILITY OF WOMEN

Written by Kate Lawless, Deputy Editor • Photographed by Hunter Kiehl, Staff Photographer Modeled by Kate Lawless, Safa Saeed and Marina Scerpella

Think about any publicfacing woman who is in a position of power or aiming to move up in her field. Then consider what kinds of things are said or written about her, especially in mainstream media. Whether you thought about politicians, celebrities or athletes, chances are you’ve seen just as many articles or videos on how she dresses or wears her hair, as how capable and intelligent she is. This is the reality for all professional women.

Looking good has proven advantages in most personal and professional settings. Obviously, conventionally-attractive people have better luck in the dating pool, but it also appears that attractive men and women can earn 10-15% more income than “unattractive” people.1 Often called the Halo Effect, attractive people are considered to be more innocent, intelligent and sociable.2 It has been found that physically attractive students are more likely to be admitted into universities after their interviews and tend to earn higher grades by professors who deem them attractive.3

This double standard also occurs after finishing school. Attractive CEOs or other powerful, public figures are more likely to be positively perceived by their stakeholders than their less attractive counterparts, irrespective of their job performance. While you’re probably aware of how pretty privilege affects women in public-facing roles, there is less discussion about how the beauty advantage works for or against women in less prominent fields.

Conventionally pretty women are privileged an advantage during the hiring process, as they are more likely to be interviewed and hired, whereas less attractive workers are more likely to

1 Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, “It’s Time To Expose The Attractiveness Bias At Work,” Forbes (Forbes Magazine, July 17, 2019). 2 “Beauty At Work: How Physical Appearance Impacts Job Search & Careers: Glassdoor,” Glassdoor Blog, October 21, 2011. 3 Rey Hernández-Julián and Christina Peters, “Student Appearance and Academic Performance” (Metropolitan University of Denver, December 2015). be fired.4 This beauty bias is especially exacerbated now because many people include headshots with their resumes or CVs when applying for jobs.

A study published in the International Journal of Selection and Assessment found that people with mediocre work experience and an attractive photograph on their resume were more likely to be selected for an interview than one without a photo.5 While this may give some female applicants the beauty advantage, it may also activate the implicit bias some hiring managers have against features like weight, skin color and hair texture.

While this beauty bias, or lookism, may benefit certain women, it does not advance the overall feminist cause of equality. Even though you may get hired or make more money as a result of your appearance, this advantage also works to the detriment of other women who are more affected by racist, colorist, ageist and classist beauty biases.

This unfair emphasis on physical attractiveness is rooted in arbitrary, Westernized ideals of beauty that have nothing to do with job performance. Furthermore, it puts women who are financially disadvantaged in an even more challenging position when they are applying for jobs.

Meeting this beauty standard is expensive. The cost of cosmetics, beauty enhancement procedures, manicures, pedicures, waxing, shaving, shoes, clothes and much more adds up quickly. This is all on top of paying for birth control, menstruation-related products and other female health items. All of these femaletargeted products are affected by something called the Pink Tax, which inflates the price of products marketed to women. →

4 Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, “Attractive People Get Unfair Advantages at Work. AI Can Help.,” Harvard Business Review, October 31, 2019. 5 Lucy M Watkins and Lucy Johnston, “Screening Job Applicants: The Impact of Physical Attractiveness and Application Quality,” International Journal of Selection and Assessment 8, no. 2 (December 16, 2002).

CULTURE A 2020 study found that the average American woman spends almost $4,000 a year alone on appearance-related products like skincare and hair care.6 This, combined with lowering levels of women’s selfesteem due to social media use and the increased popularity of cosmetic procedures, has significantly driven up the price of being considered beautiful. Women get caught in this cycle of desiring to be conventionally attractive in order to be valued in things such as employment, forcing them to pay absurd amounts of money in order to maintain their appearance.

This is the Catch-22 of being a working woman. You are more likely to be underpaid as a woman because of the gender wage gap. But to improve your financial prospects, you are expected to either win the genetic lottery or pay for the cosmetics, clothes or procedures that make you stand out to your superiors or potential employer.

Not only is this pretty privilege generally unfair and not backed by ability or talent, but it is also especially harmful to the professional goals and self-esteem of women of color and women who are financially struggling. These women, who may not be white or white-passing, thin or have access to gyms memberships, high-quality clothes or cosmetics are disproportionately affected by beauty biases that favor those traits. It has also been proven that fairer-skinned applicants are more likely to experience the Halo Effect, which leads to them earning more money and being more likely to be interviewed, hired or promoted.7 Women from minority groups or a lower socioeconomic background are less likely to fit the dominant “beauty norm.”

6 Kaitlyn McLintock, “The Average Cost of Beauty Maintenance Could Put You Through Harvard,” Byrdie, April 23, 2020. 7 Igor Ryabov, “How Much Does Physical Attractiveness Matter for Blacks? Linking Skin Color, Physical Attractiveness, and Black Status Attainment,” Race and Social Problems 11 (August 17, 2018).

“Not only is this pretty privilege generally unfair and not backed by ability or talent, but it is also especially harmful to the professional goals and self- esteem of women of color and women who are financially struggling.”

Some companies are no longer recommending that applicants include their headshots, which is a step in the right direction. Overall, more needs to be done about the attractiveness bias in hiring processes and the increasing pressure on women to spend money on their appearance to better their chances of making money. To combat this, some companies are turning to AI recruiting methods that will hopefully eliminate that bias. Instead, AI systems cannot see the applicants or form opinions about them and will instead simply search keywords in resumes and cover letters, then send the application materials to people who will actually view them. However, AI systems are manmade and reflect human biases and there have been instances of bots still operating according to classist or racist biases.8 More companies need to own up to their conscious or unconscious beauty bias practices and expect their hiring managers and superiors to treat each applicant and employee equally. Technology may help, but we need a cultural change to truly make a difference.

8 Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, “It’s Time To Expose The Attractiveness Bias At Work,” Forbes (Forbes Magazine, July 17, 2019). Unfortunately, women’s appearances are considered an intrinsic part of their personal and professional value. This is especially absurd considering there is no natural, universally accepted standard of beauty, only appearances we are socialized to value, especially through media consumption. Women are forced to compete with each other, not only by working harder and being smarter but by comparing their appearances.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and your physical appearance certainly does not define your worth as a person. Discussions of financial privilege, racism, colorism and body positivity have done much to make people aware of how standards of beauty negatively affect women’s self-esteem, but we need to acknowledge the role it also plays in our opportunities for upward social mobility. The price of pretty is costing women their social and financial advancement, and taking a toll on their self-esteem. In order to support women towards their success, we must be critical of our own beauty biases and challenge those who consciously or unconsciously believe idealized beauty is a reflection of professional ability or talent. ■