The XX Factor: What women really think.



  • Lilies that Fester: Palin and the Beauty Penalty


    Sara, I was intrigued by your post (Palin May Be Pretty, But Her Poll numbers Aren't) noting that Palin's "supposed sex appeal hasn't translated into more votes." I'm no Palin fan (though I can't get too worked up about the $150,000 wardrobe expenditure)—but I can't help wondering if Palin's sex appeal isn't actually hurting her, at this point.

    I've blogged here before about the benefits—social and financial—our society hands out to those fortunate enough to be attractive. Reasearchers call it the "beauty premium." But ... it turns out that there's also a "beauty penalty." One 2006 study found that:

    People are more likely to trust a pretty face, but when that trust is betrayed, the backlash can be ugly. ... Numerous studies have shown that attractive people generally make more money, get higher reviews from their supervisors and are viewed as being more intelligent and trustworthy. What surprised researchers in this study was that subjects deemed attractive also were penalized more harshly for failing to live up to expectations.

     I wonder if that's what's happening to Sarah Palin now. Quoth the Sage:

    For if that flower with base infection meet,
    The basest weed outbraves his dignity:
    For sweetest things turn sourest by their deeds;
    Lilies that fester, smell far worse than weeds.

    Ahem.

    Or join the discussion
    on the Fray
  • Sarah Shops Saks


    John Edwards' $400 haircut mattered because it added to the impression that he was a pretty boy. Sarah Palin's $150,000 wardrobe makeover, paid for by the Republican National Committee at the cash registers of Saks, Neiman Marcus, and Barneys, matters for a kind of opposite reason: It explodes the idea that she's a middle-class woman of the people. In a sense, this is unfair. If Palin was wealthy, she'd have had the leather boots and tailored suits already. And if her look is hugely important to the McCain campaign, or at least to the crowds she draws, why shouldn't the RNC pay for it? Isn't her image a legitimate campaign expense?

    Two reasons why this doesn't fly, I think. The first is that the price tag is just too high, too many teacher and nurse and firefighter salaries. The second is that all this money spent on clothes, etc., points out exactly how much Palin is trading on her sexuality, her winks, her look. You're right, Hanna and Susannah, she's owning her sex appeal. All $150,000 of it.

    Or join the discussion
    on the Fray
0 Comments
<February 2010>
SMTWTFS
31123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28123456
78910111213
Print This ArticlePRINT Discuss in the FrayDISCUSS

Syndication