(Part 1 of 3)
This movie requires an opening scene…
Women’s bodies have a language all to their own.
Very different from men.
Women are culturally evolving rapidly.
30 years ago, women made about 65 cents to the man’s dollar. Today, single women with no kids (SWINKS) out-earn their male counterparts. Women entering the workplace have significantly more powerthan men.
30 years ago, women were just starting to catch up with men in educational degree attainment. Today, women get about 55% of all Bachelors Degrees. Education is Power and translates into dollars almost hand in hand.
Women have become “more like men,” in other ways, as well. 30 years ago, women reported having significantly fewer intimate relationships per year than men did. Now, women are just about even in number of intimate relationships as men.
30 years ago…well, you get the idea. Bob Dylan said, “The times they are a changin’….” and they really have.
Today, if a woman wants a job, the probability is very high that she will have a job when she asks. Female unemployment in the USA is dramatically lower than male unemployment.
Women are Gaining Power
As women culturally evolve, they have become more choosy in who they want as a permanent partner. Interestingly, where wealthy men prefer younger women, powerful, wealthy women prefer older men. But that’s not as interesting as ….the rest of the story…
There are different categories of women, just as there are men. With men, height and hair pay off. So does education, status and prestige.
With women education, status and prestige pay off, but nothing pays off like beauty.
Attractive women enjoy a net worth that is 11 times greater than the net worth of AVERAGE women. That’s eleven times.
The net worth of attractive women compared with unattractive women is daunting, approaching 100:1.
Attractive women are far more likely to get promoted and earn more money.
Working for men?
No. Men in the office treat the attractive woman far more equally than the other women in the office treat the same attractive woman.
Women recognize Alpha Females and they, too, know they are in the top 20% of desirability. Women in positions hire and promote the attractive female.
Why? For the moment it doesn’t matter. Women consciously and nonconsciously show strong preference to attractive women.
From day one, literally, attractive children are treated very differently than unattractive children.
Is Beauty required for Power?
Beauty is one of those things that stirs emotions about as deep as anything. People want, and in fact, on some levels, people NEED to be as beautiful as they possibly can be.
Wait a minute…need beauty?
Yes. People need beauty.
Take a step back for a minute and consider…
Studies consistently show that infants and children who are seen as unattractive are beaten and abused by their mothers far more often than their attractive counterparts.
We could stop there; but even after childhood, the challenges/benefits continue. The woman who is average or below average in appearance, that woman’s chances of ending up with a financially successful and attractive hubby by mid-life are greatly reduced. And what about after hubby bites the dust?
The research shows less attractive women end up with very little money in inheritance and accumulate almost no net worth whether on their own from their own career, or received from their hubby in the will.
Why are attractive women promoted to power?
Attractive women get better grades from Kindergarten through University.
Attractive women have more positive personality characteristics ascribed to them by both men and women than any other demographic.
It goes on and on.
At the office, sexual desire is not something that can be switched off. The nonconscious is the nonconscious. It doesn’t think, it just does…
Women now have the power to filter OUT unattractive men. Men compete not only for sales but for women. And women compete for sales and men.
Behavior in the office, by a man, toward a woman, that is sexually suggestive, is generally considered harassment by women when the man is deemed unattractive.
The research shows it is very rare that attractive men are accused of harassment, and in studies where a woman is shown a picture of a man and then is told a story of what he would like to do, or he “touches” (or) “tries to boldly flirt” this has shown true. However, the less attractive men performing the same behavior are noted as harassing the female employee.
For the attractive male, being suggestive is not typically seen in that regard.
Keypoint: Like men, women’s thoughts are shaped and influenced by their identity and by the world’s perception of them.
Now today, you move to new ground.
There may be only two sexes, but…
There are Six “Worlds” Within the Two Sexes
There are men and women and… There are the attractive 1/6, the unattractive 1/6, and a big 2/3 middle group.
The research (like all research in nonverbal communication) is frustrating because all people have different conscious and nonconscious “rules” for other people, and those rules are not consistent from person to person.
Women and men typically think very differently about the attractive and unattractive.
Men and women make decisions about right and wrong through their own lenses that extend beyond male and female.
For today, you get an in-depth look at four of the six types of people.
Today there are…
- Attractive males
- Unattractive males
- Attractive females
- Unattractive females
One study stands out in my mind as more revealing of how women think differently than men, and how women might use their power, than any other I’ve seen. (http://www.csulb.edu/~djorgens/wuensch.pdf)
The Mock Juror Study
324 people served as mock jurors in a simulated civil case in which a male plaintiff accused a female defendant of sexual harassment.
The researchers at East Carolina University experimentally manipulated the physical attractiveness of the two individuals. (The accuser and the accused.)
The researchers asked the mock jurors to decide whether the defendant was guilty and to rate their certainty of belief in the defendant’s (the woman’s) guilt (or lack of guilt). Stories of aggressively sexual communication about what happened between the two of them from the defendant, were told by him and then denied by her.
Jurors were more certain of the guilt of the defendant (the woman) when the plaintiff (the man) was attractive than when he was unattractive.
In plain English: The Jurors perceptions determined that if the guy was good looking, a woman obviously would potentially sexually harass the guy…meanwhile unattractive men aren’t likely to be harassed…or complain about it.
Men and Women’s Perceptions
Now let’s dig deep and see just how men and women judge similarly, and how they judge differently.
The Plaintiff (The man’s) attractiveness significantly affected female jurors’ individual recommended verdicts when the defendant (the woman) was unattractive but not when she was attractive.
With male jurors, plaintiff (The Man’s) attractiveness significantly affected their verdicts when the defendant (Woman) was attractive but not when she was unattractive.
Now let’s get to the specifics about HOW women think, as they look through their lenses as contrasted with men.
Female jurors were more likely than male jurors to conclude that sexual harassment had taken place, but only when the litigants were different in attractiveness.
Women tended to “believe” that harassment was less likely when the female boss and the male employee were equally attractive.
I will return to the specifics of this study in a moment for some fairly shocking and significant revelations, but first let’s take this concept out of the University and put it into reality.
What Happens in Real Juries?
In real courts, an attractive man convicted of rape tends to get a lighter sentence than an unattractive man.
Perhaps (probably) the intuitive thoughts of the jurors are “Maybe he is guilty but he can have whatever he wants, so maybe he didn’t do it…go easy…”
Much like the “fact” that there are no ugly con men, the profile is that there are few attractive rapists in courts.
If the female victim is attractive, the man in rape cases is more likely to be convicted of the crime.
Perhaps the intuitive thoughts of the jurors are, “She’s beautiful, so maybe it makes sense that the loser would want to rape her. Put him away.”
(Those are pretty good guesses, and the research all but says that.)
Previous research revealed that the stated reasons in studies about why attractive men in the real world are much less likely to be convicted of sexual harassment come down to four reasons:
a) The man is attractive, he doesn’t need to sexually harass. He can get sex anytime he wants it.
b) Sexual advances by attractive men are unlikely to be taken as harassing by the woman.
c) Men won’t harass unattractive women.
d) An unattractive woman is unlikely to believe an advance is harassing.
To be clear, that’s what the stated reasons were shown to be, not my opinion.
Returning to the East Carolina University Study where the accused in the scenario was always a woman employer and the accuser was always a male employee…
The “Facts” of the Case
This same story was told to each of the 324 mock jurors:
In the plaintiff’s testimony, he explained that in the 3 years that he had been working for the defendant as an assistant manager of her apartment complex, her harassing behaviors had escalated. Initially, she made inappropriate and unwanted remarks about his clothing and physique…She tried to touch and caress his body. When he objected to these behaviors, she told him that he must have liked it or he would have already left to find employment elsewhere. He alleged that in recent months, she tried to put her hand under his clothing, chased him around the office trying to kiss him and repeatedly tried to fondle his buttocks and…She went so far as to describe to him the sexual acts in which she desired to engage him….And the female employer completely denied any of this took place indicating they had a cool but pleasant working relationship.
The only difference presented to the mock jurors was the attractiveness of the plaintiff and the defendant. …and the gender of the Jurors…everything else was identical.
The woman was found guilty 77% of the time if the man was attractive.
The woman was found guilty 63% of the time if the man was unattractive.
That’s HUGE. Same exact story, different photos…
You and I profile people based on how they look. Often times, the profiling is correct (and sensible). Sometimes it’s dead wrong.
Verdict by Gender and Level of Attractiveness
How did the vote break down by the gender of the jurors?
Women voted the accused woman guilty 74% of the time.
Men voted the woman guilty 66% of the time.
Did you think women Jurors would let off the woman because they identified with her as a woman? Apparently not.
Here’s the first big dichotomy:
When the woman (The Employer) was UNattractive?
Women Jurors voted guilty 85% of the time if the man was attractive.
Women Jurors voted guilty 58% of the time in the man was UNattractive.
In other words:
Two unattractive people?
Harassment is much less likely in the eyes of a woman.
If the employed man is attractive and not the woman, she IS GUILTY.
Clearly, women were prepared to bury the manipulative unattractive woman harassing the nice but pitiful unattractive man. But they only voted her guilty much more often when the man was unattractive. After all, why would a woman harass an unattractive man? It doesn’t “fit” in the female mind. (Or at least the 85% of women)
The Female Jurors may have felt the unattractive woman tried to use her position of power to acquire the attractive male. And they simply didn’t wholeheartedly buy into the attractive female employer chasing the unattractive guy around the office for three years.
How did Male Jurors vote overall when the woman was unattractive?
The attractive male? She was voted guilty 63% of the time. (vs. 85% for Women Jurors)
The unattractive male? She was voted guilty 68% of the time. (vs. 58% for Women Jurors)
SOMETHING IS WRONG HERE.
Men voted the female employer guilty regardless of the attractiveness of the man.
Women did the opposite.
Is it that women have better insights into other women’s minds? Do women already know that women don’t go after/harass unattractive men? Do women already know that attractive men are The Target and thus the certain guilty verdict of the unattractive woman?
For whatever reason, women voted with CERTAINTY that the unattractive woman was guilty if the man was attractive.
And When the guy was not good looking?
Men significantly more than women voted the female boss guilty.
There was no statistical difference in guilty verdicts from the men. They either bought the guys story or didn’t almost equally.
How did Male Jurorsvote overall when the woman (accused) was attractive?
78% voted her guilty when the man was attractive.
56% voted her guilty when the man was unattractive.
Now the tide shifts. Male Jurors don’t see the attractive woman chasing the goofy looking guy around the office for three years. They easily saw her as guilty when he was attractive.
Here we have a big schism in the male thinking just as we observed with female thinking. Male Jurors didn’t buy the story wholeheartedly if they guy was unattractive.
When the defendant (The Accused Woman) was attractive and theAccusing Male was unattractive?
Women Jurors voted guilty 85% of the time.
Men Jurors voted guilty 68% of the time.
Here you observe a big difference between men and women analyzing the situation. Women dramatically bought into the man’s story, men did to a much lesser extent.
When both the defendant and plaintiff were unattractive?
Women voted guilty 58% of the time.
Men voted guilty 63% of the time.
When both the defendant and plaintiff were attractive?
Women voted guilty 78% of the time.
Men voted guilty 78% of the time.
Keypoint: Both sexes judged identically when both the two parties were good looking. They figured she did it.
In sum, the jurors sided with the attractive male plaintiff twice as often.
All the research bares this out: Jurors tend to not believe an employer would harass the UNattractive person of the opposite sex.
In this research, the only and entire credibility of the story goes to the photographs of the defendant and plaintiff. That’s it. There were no other differences.
Only their own personal experiences, beliefs and the visual image of the photos connected with the story.
The differences in the decision of guilt was significantly biased by the attractiveness of the individuals. The good looking woman did it to the good looking guy.
What do you learn from the data?
Women are wielding power…
- Sexual Harassment is significantly an issue of sexual desire and sexual perception in the minds of perhaps most people, and in particular, women. This may be culturally incorrect in the United States, but the reality is what it is.Women Jurors voted the UNattractive Female Boss guilty for harassing the Attractive Male Employee far more often than the Men.
- In the American public discussion, fact number one is denied.
- Women intuitively (nonconsciously) vote their intuition – what they “know” to be true. Because there were no real guilty parties just perceptions of the same exact story, you saw enormous bias with Women Jurors.
- The difference between women and men in perception of guilt is dramatic.
- If you are an attractive woman as defendant in a sexual harassment lawsuit and Jurors are women, prepare to pull out the checkbook. With men? You have a much better chance of being “Not Guilty”.
- If you are an unattractive man as a plaintiff in a sexual harassment case, you better hope for men on the jury because the women aren’t going to believe you as much in the story.Women are telling you (shouting?) that they are quite certain that attractive women aren’t chasing down unattractive men.
- You have no idea what reality of whether men or women “are right” you simply know that women will see their female compatriot as a “predator” unless both the male and female complainants are unattractive where she barely buys the story.
- Men were more uncertain of the Employee’s claims against the female boss in all cases EXCEPT when both plaintiff and defendant were attractive. In this case, men agreed with women EXACTLY.
What’s so uncanny is that the University study was done with an identical story and photographs. There were no nuances. This was all about what differences were ticking inside of the men and women as jurors.
Are Women More Judgmental?
Does this mean women are more “judgmental” of women?
It isn’t absolutely proven by this research, but if push came to shove, you’d have to say that was generally the case.
There is very little in life that is more powerful than that of being a juror in a case.
Powerful women, it appears, might swing a heavy sword.
In the next article…you”ll see just how that sword swings…
Reserve your spot now!
Kevin Hogan Personal Appearances, Classes, Seminars & E-Courses
See Kevin Hogan “Live” in person, or participate in an online E-course with personal attention from Kevin Hogan! Attend an online tele-seminar!