dkatz@zaphod.UUCP (Dave Katz) (05/22/85)
In article <574@sfmag.UUCP> howard@sfmag.UUCP (H.M.Moskovitz) writes: >> >> Now I know good looks can be a combination of natural looks and hard work, >> but the genetics certainly play a part. Not so with other attributes as >> long as they are self made. >> >> Of course, a person's intelligence or earning power don't show (normally) >> on the other side of the room at a party. Looks do. > >This past weekend, (Saturday night, I believe) ABC aired a special entitled: > > LOOKS > >which discussed how our looks affect us in society. I found a very >interesting point ( that I suspected for some time) is that more >attractive people tend to get better jobs, promotions, and pay. > ..... Not necessarily true. In a short T.V. news story I saw recently, it was related that while more 'handsome' men tend to get better jobs, promotions, etc., quite the opposite was true for women. The more attractive a woman is, the less likely she is to gain promotions, especially in the higher echelons of a company. The reporter, quoting a recent study, stated that good looks in a woman were taken as a negative indicator of business skills. +---------------------------------------------------+ | Replace this line with your disclaimer. | D. Katz +---------------------------------------------------+
mat@mtx5b.UUCP (Mark Terribile) (05/25/85)
>> This past weekend, (Saturday night, I believe) ABC aired a special entitled: >> LOOKS >> ... more attractive people tend to get better jobs, promotions, and pay. >> ..... >Not necessarily true. In a short T.V. news story I saw recently, it >was related that while more 'handsome' men tend to get better jobs, >promotions, etc., quite the opposite was true for women. ... >The reporter, quoting a recent study, stated that good looks in a woman were >taken as a negative indicator of business skills. During WWII, the British Secret Service, under the command of INTREPID (Wm. Stephenson) had hundreds of people opening other peoples' mail. The ``other people'' were known or suspected spies, and it was important that the letters be opened carefully and resealed perfectly. For some reason, the fellow in charge of this operation found that women with attractive ankles did well, and women who did poorly almost always has less well-shaped ankles. You may speculate what you like about muscle tone in the limbs, but this is what was reported. On a more analytical note, is it possible that attractive women learn (or are taught) to exploit their attractiveness, and that as you move higher and higher up the management chain, where other people can't afford the time and effort to keep supporting her, the women who does this becomes less a pleasure and more a liability? -- from Mole End Mark Terribile (scrape .. dig ) mtx5b!mat ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (05/27/85)
> During WWII, the British Secret Service, under the command of INTREPID (Wm. > Stephenson) had hundreds of people opening other peoples' mail. The ``other > people'' were known or suspected spies, and it was important that the letters > be opened carefully and resealed perfectly. For some reason, the fellow in > charge of this operation found that women with attractive ankles did well, > and women who did poorly almost always has less well-shaped ankles. You > may speculate what you like about muscle tone in the limbs, but this is what > was reported. What sample size did he have? > from Mole End Mark Terribile -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) aka Swazoo Koolak {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff