Its been widely observed that attractiveness helps in most interactions, especially sales related, so this is no surprise.
The real surprise should be that female attractiveness doesn't have a significant impact. My initial guess would be that investors, unfortunately, are so dismissive of female pitches that attractiveness can't even help.
If she's ugly: "Why would you want to fund an ugly girl? Let's get some hotties in here."
If she's attractive: "She's too hot. How could she possibly be a serious hacker / business leader? No one will take her seriously if she looks like that."
A nitpick about terms, but not all discrimination against women is 'institutional' sexism. Institutional prejudice may be sufficient but is definitely not necessary for acts of sexism to occur. People are quite capable of acting on innate or pre-learned biases.
The real surprise should be that female attractiveness doesn't have a significant impact.
There are a number of well-known paradoxes surrounding female beauty. One is that an attractive female defendant in a criminal trial is much more likely to be convicted than a plain Jane, all other factors the same.
From what I have read, attractiveness is highly advantageous for all defendants, except when the crime was attractiveness-related (such as swindle). In the latter case, attractive people instead get harsher sentences.
(See Harold Sigall and Nancy Ostrove, Beautiful but Dangerous: Effects of Offender Attractiveness and Nature of the Crime on Juridic Judgment)
The real surprise should be that female attractiveness doesn't have a significant impact.
This isn't at all surprising. That the expectation for women is to look good but not too good, professional but not too professional, etc. is something I've encountered for at least a decade.
It's well known in sales that attractive females have a huge advantage. This is because male buyers will instinctively spend more to show off their power.
Attractive men still have an advantage over unattractive men in terms of persuasion and intimidation.
Ah yes, I failed to address that. I think there are two things at play here: first is that the "investors" were merely asked to rate, but not actually invest. So their honest opinions can come through. Second is that investors have a little less power disparity (in relative social terms) over founders, so a overt display of wealth isn't likely to work as easily. Could even be considered off-putting.
Comments
Its been widely observed that attractiveness helps in most interactions, especially sales related, so this is no surprise.
The real surprise should be that female attractiveness doesn't have a significant impact. My initial guess would be that investors, unfortunately, are so dismissive of female pitches that attractiveness can't even help.
It's probably a double bind.
If she's ugly: "Why would you want to fund an ugly girl? Let's get some hotties in here."
If she's attractive: "She's too hot. How could she possibly be a serious hacker / business leader? No one will take her seriously if she looks like that."
Maybe this is too cynical? (I sort of hope so.)
Institutional sexism is certainly a thing.
A nitpick about terms, but not all discrimination against women is 'institutional' sexism. Institutional prejudice may be sufficient but is definitely not necessary for acts of sexism to occur. People are quite capable of acting on innate or pre-learned biases.
There are a number of well-known paradoxes surrounding female beauty. One is that an attractive female defendant in a criminal trial is much more likely to be convicted than a plain Jane, all other factors the same.
From what I have read, attractiveness is highly advantageous for all defendants, except when the crime was attractiveness-related (such as swindle). In the latter case, attractive people instead get harsher sentences.
(See Harold Sigall and Nancy Ostrove, Beautiful but Dangerous: Effects of Offender Attractiveness and Nature of the Crime on Juridic Judgment)
This isn't at all surprising. That the expectation for women is to look good but not too good, professional but not too professional, etc. is something I've encountered for at least a decade.
It's well known in sales that attractive females have a huge advantage. This is because male buyers will instinctively spend more to show off their power.
Attractive men still have an advantage over unattractive men in terms of persuasion and intimidation.
That's probably why he is surprised that it has no effect here.
Ah yes, I failed to address that. I think there are two things at play here: first is that the "investors" were merely asked to rate, but not actually invest. So their honest opinions can come through. Second is that investors have a little less power disparity (in relative social terms) over founders, so a overt display of wealth isn't likely to work as easily. Could even be considered off-putting.